Bad Chihuahua! (An Inability To Separate God From Religion)

[Revoltingest]

I don't hate atheists at all.

Just making posts hostile to us
& mis-representative about us.
Such over-zealousness in such
attacks.

 

[LadyJane]

I agree that most atheists simply aren't interested in the theist proposition. But they rarely come to this site.

Are you sure you are leaving yourself room enough to notice if one walks through the door?

 

[PureX]

Just making posts hostile to us
& mis-representative about us.
Such over-zealousness in such
attacks.

It's not my doing that you all can't tolerate any kind of criticism. And I don't criticize anyone out of "hate". I do it as a favor to anyone wise enough to listen and consider. But people's egos get their old knees a-jerkin' and the opportunity being offered usually ends up being completely wasted. So be it. I'm still here. I'll offer again.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not my doing that you all can't tolerate any kind of criticism.

I tolerate your posts.
But I'll criticize them for errors & hostility.
Can you take it?

And I don't criticize anyone out of "hate".

Well, I didn't use that word.

I do it as a favor to anyone wise enough to listen and consider.

Wise folk will consider,
& then correct you.

But people's egos get their old knees a-jerkin' and the opportunity being offered usually ends up being completely wasted. So be it. I'm still here. I'll offer again.

You're in no position to dis
anyone else's knee motion.

 

[PureX]

I tolerate your posts.
But I'll criticize them for errors & hostility.
Can you take it?

I'm not responsible for your hostility.

 

[LuisDantas]

It's not my doing that you all can't tolerate any kind of criticism.

Criticism is fine. But respect to reality and some honest effort to avoid libel are necessary.

 

[osgart]

On another thread someone asked atheists why and how they became atheists. And nearly every response sited some unresolvable issue with religion, and/or with how some religion was defining God. The idea being that as the atheist rejected the God as it was defined by that religion, they rejected the idea of God all together.

And for some reason the irrationality of this thought process never seems to have crossed anyone's mind. As to a person, some religion or other was being allowed to define God, without doubt or exception, so that in rejecting that religion's 'God', the entire concept of and gamut of alternative possibilities was being dismissed, en total.

"A chihuahua bit me once as a kid so I reject and despise all dogs to this day."

It seems to me that there is a strong prejudice being served, here. As evidenced by a blanket dismissal prior to any honest exploration or investigation into the many possible ways we humans might choose to define or conceptualize "God".

Do you have an example of a God that atheists are prematurely denying exists?

By definition I understand any God as having supernatural power and control over life and existence.

I suppose there are more naturalistic gods to choose from. However I wouldn't give any credence to the idea of a being having any power and authority over me.

 

[PureX]

Criticism is fine. But respect to reality and some honest effort to avoid libel are necessary.

So far, all I see is a lot of whining. What I don't see is anyone offering a reasonable, logical, rebuttal.

Just read the responses being posted on that other thread by atheists explaining why they are atheist and you will see for yourself that nearly every single one of them is whining about how some religious people treated them badly, and how they couldn't accept the absurdly childish depictions of God that they ALLOWED THESE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE TO DICTATE TO THEM. And when they rejected it, they rejected the entire concept of God in all it's possible variations along with it with narry a moment's consideration.

And they are STILL rejected the entire idea based on the same irrational resentments and idiotic arguments (no evidence, religion bad). And when I dare to bring up how irrational this all is, oh, my! The howl of disdain! The butt-hurt egos! And the accusations of hatred! Everything but an actual honest, considered response.

And none of this is my fault. I'm just making some obvious, critical observations, here. To people who are constantly proclaiming how critically thoughtful they are. And so should be grateful for the challenge. And yet for some reason they are behaving like spoiled toddlers.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not responsible for your hostility.

But can you take it?
(I see you sweating.)

 

[Koldo]

So far, all I see is a lot of whining. What I don't see is anyone offering a reasonable, logical, rebuttal.

Just read the responses being posted on that other thread by atheists explaining why they are atheist and you will see for yourself that nearly every single one of them is whining about how some religious people treated them badly, and how they couldn't accept the absurdly childish depictions of God that they ALLOWED THESE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE TO DICTATE TO THEM. And when they rejected it, they rejected the entire concept of God in all it's possible variations along with it with narry a moment's consideration.

It sounds like you are upset that we didn't try to salvage our belief in God by resorting to wishful thinking. As if we had pull from our buttocks a depiction that would satisfy a need we don't feel.

And they are STILL rejected the entire idea based on the same irrational resentments and idiotic arguments (no evidence, religion bad). And when I dare to bring up how irrational this all is, oh, my! The howl of disdain! The butt-hurt egos! And the accusations of hatred! Everything but an actual honest, considered response.

And none of this is my fault. I'm just making some obvious, critical observations, here. To people who are constantly proclaiming how critically thoughtful they are. And so should be grateful for the challenge. And yet for some reason they are behaving like spoiled toddlers.

Lack of evidence is an idiotic argument to reject a supernatural claim....? How come?

 

[PureX]

It sounds like you are upset ...

I am not "upset". I couldn't care less what you think or how you feel about God. I am simply pointing out the obvious irrationality I am seeing in the proclaimed decision by people that are constantly also proclaiming their love for rationality.

... that we didn't try to salvage our belief in God by resorting to wishful thinking.

Again, I don't care what you think or hw you feel about God. I don't care what you think or how you feel about those who do 'believe in' God. As I have stated many times now, the whole point of this thread was to point out the obvious irrationality of tossing the ideological baby ut with the bathwater. Can you address this? Or are you going to continue to present me with how you imagine me to be feeling?

As if we had pull from our buttocks a depiction that would satisfy a need we don't feel.

Theism is a valid philosophical proposition. And there are a number of logical and valid ways one might choose to respond to it, including the atheist contra-proposition. Whining about religious depictions that you don't accept isn't one of them. Neither is claiming religion is bad, whether it is or not.

Lack of evidence is an idiotic argument to reject a supernatural claim....? How come?

As has been explained a hundred times.
1. There IS evidence. And lots of it.
2. That you reject any evidence that does not support your irrational demands is not evidence against theism.
3. Not getting evidence that you didn't look for, can't identify, and can't validate means nothing.
4. Your argument with the term "supernatural" is a semantic argument that has no standing regarding the theist proposition.
Just for starters.

 

[Revoltingest]

As has been explained a hundred times.
1. There IS evidence. And lots of it.

I don't recall ever seeing you present
evidence, especially "lots of it".

 

[Heyo]

As has been explained a hundred times.
1. There IS evidence. And lots of it.

There is evidence, but evidence for what?
There is some weak evidence for an afterlife (NDE).
There is evidence for some of the religions, e.g. some reports of Christians in the first century.
But where is the evidence for a "god"?

2. That you reject any evidence that does not support your irrational demands is not evidence against theism.

The OP is about differentiating between god and religion. I.e. we have also to differentiate between evidence for god and evidence for religion or any other phenomenon.

3. Not getting evidence that you didn't look for, can't identify, and can't validate means nothing.

Evidence I can't validate is not evidence, it's hearsay.

4. Your argument with the term "supernatural" is a semantic argument that has no standing regarding the theist proposition.
Just for starters.

Is there anything like a theist proposition? "Theist" is an umbrella term for proponents of multiple religions, but is there any "pure" theist, who is not also a member of a religion?

 

[Aupmanyav]

As evidenced by a blanket dismissal prior to any honest exploration or investigation into the many possible ways we humans might choose to define or conceptualize "God".

Not a question of definition or conceptualization, what matters is evidence. What evidence do you have for it?

 

[Mock Turtle]

So far, all I see is a lot of whining. What I don't see is anyone offering a reasonable, logical, rebuttal.

Just read the responses being posted on that other thread by atheists explaining why they are atheist and you will see for yourself that nearly every single one of them is whining about how some religious people treated them badly, and how they couldn't accept the absurdly childish depictions of God that they ALLOWED THESE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE TO DICTATE TO THEM. And when they rejected it, they rejected the entire concept of God in all it's possible variations along with it with narry a moment's consideration.

And they are STILL rejected the entire idea based on the same irrational resentments and idiotic arguments (no evidence, religion bad). And when I dare to bring up how irrational this all is, oh, my! The howl of disdain! The butt-hurt egos! And the accusations of hatred! Everything but an actual honest, considered response.

And none of this is my fault. I'm just making some obvious, critical observations, here. To people who are constantly proclaiming how critically thoughtful they are. And so should be grateful for the challenge. And yet for some reason they are behaving like spoiled toddlers.

Well you can exclude me from the 'every single one', given I have said enough times that it is purely down to the probabilities of religions coming from some divine source that I question - based on various factors - and I have no grudge against any religion other than the negative effects they often cause, in my view. So I don't accept their depictions of God other than as projections. As to any God as a concept, for me the evidence that I have come across, as to human life, all other life, and as to the universe that we currently know, these also point to there not being a God as an explanation, although like many not so arrogant, I have to leave this open to some extent because of lack of information and knowledge.

 

[PureX]

There is evidence, but evidence for what?
There is some weak evidence for an afterlife (NDE).
There is evidence for some of the religions, e.g. some reports of Christians in the first century.
But where is the evidence for a "god"?

There is the logical philosophical evidence for an intelligent creator of some kind. There is the anecdotal evidence of millions of people's direct experience of some sort of God being. There is the development of the God ideal occurring in every culture in every time period and in every location on Earth.

The OP is about differentiating between god and religion. I.e. we have also to differentiate between evidence for god and evidence for religion or any other phenomenon.

We need no evidence for religion as it is all around us. The problem here is not recognizing that religion is a practice, not proposition. And theism is a proposition, not a practice. The depictions of gods in religion are intended for the purpose of theological practice. Not for the purpose of defining theism. Or even a theology. So when you dislike or otherwise reject some religious depiction of God, it has no relation to the theist proposition or even, sometimes, to the theology from which it derives and is intended to serve. The OT God is a good example of this in that it's depiction often contradicts the theology being promoted by the NT.

Evidence I can't validate is not evidence, it's hearsay.

You are not the definer of what is and is not evidence. And presuming that you are is a sure way of solidifying your own confirmation bias. When the whole world becomes your own personal kangaroo court, you'll never be wrong about anything.

Is there anything like a theist proposition? "Theist" is an umbrella term for proponents of multiple religions, but is there any "pure" theist, who is not also a member of a religion?

Still, you insist on confusing theism with religion. Just as I pointed out in the OP. And still you want to define the terms by personalities rather than ideas. It's like it's a kind of pathological sickness. Or an addiction. Intractable.

 

[Koldo]

I am not "upset". I couldn't care less what you think or how you feel about God. I am simply pointing out the obvious irrationality I am seeing in the proclaimed decision by people that are constantly also proclaiming their love for rationality.

You sound upset though... But I digress.

Again, I don't care what you think or hw you feel about God. I don't care what you think or how you feel about those who do 'believe in' God. As I have stated many times now, the whole point of this thread was to point out the obvious irrationality of tossing the ideological baby ut with the bathwater. Can you address this? Or are you going to continue to present me with how you imagine me to be feeling?

I have already addressed this: I had already dismissed all other forms of theism back when I was a theist. Me becoming an atheist merely entailed dismissing one form of theism.

Theism is a valid philosophical proposition. And there are a number of logical and valid ways one might choose to respond to it, including the atheist contra-proposition. Whining about religious depictions that you don't accept isn't one of them. Neither is claiming religion is bad, whether it is or not.

This doesn't address the part of the post you quoted.

As has been explained a hundred times.
1. There IS evidence. And lots of it.
2. That you reject any evidence that does not support your irrational demands is not evidence against theism.
3. Not getting evidence that you didn't look for, can't identify, and can't validate means nothing.
4. Your argument with the term "supernatural" is a semantic argument that has no standing regarding the theist proposition.
Just for starters.

My bad, I meant strong evidence.

 

[Heyo]

You are not the definer of what is and is not evidence. And presuming that you are is a sure way of solidifying your own confirmation bias. When the whole world becomes your own personal kangaroo court, you'll never be wrong about anything.

That may be indeed a source of our misunderstanding. "Evidence" has multiple meanings, depending on the field where it is used. You seem to be in favour of using the judicial definition. (You also mentioned "court".)
So, let's assume we are in court and god is accused of existing. Is that OK with you? If it is, you are allowed to use testimony and arguments - which you are not if we assume that you want to test a scientific god hypothesis.

 

[LadyJane]

It’s irrational.

If an atheist (forum member or otherwise) approached you asking for help with a drinking problem, and expressed apprehension about the religious aspects of Alcoholics Anonymous, would you accuse them of being an illogical and irrational mirror image of a religious zealot or let them know that a "higher power" can mean anything?

 

[Revoltingest]

It’s irrational.