John Doe believes in god and you don't. Why do you think he is wrong and you are right?

[A Vestigial Mote]

I take it you do not agree with what I wrote in post 85. Any reasons?

Plenty, sure.

Let's first examine the chain. So, someone posted this:

Theism certainly indicates some sort of failure of critical thinking,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

To which you replied:

I would have thought it is the other way around and atheists are the ones who lack in that area, but I know there is more to it than just critical thinking.

Implying, for one, that atheists lack in he "critical thinking" area. And further implying that "there is more to it." Let's just air that "lacking critical thinking" is thought to be a negative thing, correct? And to further state that there is "more to it" in the case of atheists is to imply that there are even more negative attributes that should be attributed to atheists. With me so far?

So then we come to a very interesting point in this conversation wherein we might present the evidence we have for one side or the other lacking critical thinking. Here is just ONE of mine (let me know if you want more - I have plenty):

Theists tend to completely ignore when the idea is presented that they believe in one deity (or set of deities), but reject others based on what ends up being the same exact forms of evidence in existence for those other deities. The evidence I am referring to here being large numbers of believers, various texts of various ages, word-of-mouth relay of information, whole industries devoted to exegesis of said texts and verbal tradition, religious adherence to observances, claims that God or gods exist outside the realm of human perception, etc. etc. etc. Now - to admit to the FACT that these same types of evidence exist for all sorts of deities (past and present, currently worshipped or not) is one thing - but when I bring this idea up, it is most often completely ignored by the theist. Completely. As in - no response whatsoever. They normally choose instead to respond to some easier, less damning part of any post or point having been made. I have NEVER seen this point addressed by any theist who has actually thought about it at all, let alone critically thought about it. This ignoring of the point, in my opinion, represents an unwillingness to even attempt to think about the idea at all - because its implications are likely too damaging to the blinders that are so obviously being worn - blinders that are especially exposed when points like this are explicitly ignored.

Again - if you want some more, just ask. It is all too easy to present these types of things that (again - in my opinion) display a complete lack of even having thought at all on a subject. And maybe YOU, particularly, don't commit these types of atrocities... and to that I would say "good for you" and "well done." But we're not talking about just you, or I, are we? No. No we are not. We are talking about the general "theist" or "atheist" when we are making sweeping statements like "these people display a lack of critical thinking and worse."

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Did I say you?

Well, I would have figured it was implied. My mistake. Sue me.

Again the rest of your post bored me.

And I care because... ? Seriously, I am having trouble understanding why you are telling me this unless you think it is somehow going to faze me.

 

[We Never Know]

Well, I would have figured it was implied. My mistake. Sue me.

And I care because... ? Seriously, I am having trouble understanding why you are telling me this unless you think it is somehow going to faze me.

For someone that doesn't care about something you sure rant on about it.

 

[We Never Know]

A delusion is a fixed belief unaffected by contrary evidence. Doesn't this describe the faithful?

Most people believe their mate is the best, the best looking, the most honest, the most loyal, the etc etc.
They also believe their kids are the best, the cutest, the smartest, the most talented, the etc etc.
I reckon 98% of the world must be delusional in some way.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

For someone that doesn't care about something you sure rant on about it.

Hahaha... and you as well. I also noticed how quickly you keep replying to me. Hahaha... I, at least, am not delusional about how much I am interested in the conversation. Note that this is not me showing some amount of care for your little "I'm bored" proclamations - those are just you trying to maintain control of the situation and be "aloof" or something. The thing I think you haven't caught onto yet is I really, really enjoy the combative nature that discussions like these can take. Confrontation, in other words. I can't get enough of it, honestly. That's what I am here for - and that's why I am still engaged in this conversation. Not because you called me "boring." I think that's you giving yourself a little too much credit.

 

[We Never Know]

Hahaha... and you as well. I also noticed how quickly you keep replying to me. Hahaha... I, at least, am not delusional about how much I am interested in the conversation. Note that this is not me showing some amount of care for your little "I'm bored" proclamations - those are just you trying to maintain control of the situation and be "aloof" or something. The thing I think you haven't caught onto yet is I really, really enjoy the combative nature that discussions like these can take. Confrontation, in other words. I can't get enough of it, honestly. That's what I am here for - and that's why I am still engaged in this conversation. Not because you called me "boring." I think that's you giving yourself a little too much credit.

Yawn. Do you need a hug so you can feel better

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Yawn. Do you need a hug so you can feel better

Big tough guy... so bored. Seems like you're the one who needs the pick-me-up. Hahaha...

 

[Brian2]

What is the evidence?

Evidence for the supernatural comes usually in the experiences of people both in history and now.

 

[We Never Know]

Hahaha... and you as well. I also noticed how quickly you keep replying to me. Hahaha... I, at least, am not delusional about how much I am interested in the conversation. Note that this is not me showing some amount of care for your little "I'm bored" proclamations - those are just you trying to maintain control of the situation and be "aloof" or something. The thing I think you haven't caught onto yet is I really, really enjoy the combative nature that discussions like these can take. Confrontation, in other words. I can't get enough of it, honestly. That's what I am here for - and that's why I am still engaged in this conversation. Not because you called me "boring." I think that's you giving yourself a little too much credit.

Arguing with someone on the internet because you like confrontations is like teasing a dog behind a fence.
It does nothing but show you are annoying. Have a good day.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I feel I've done my job well when someone feels the need to reply to the same post twice. Ahhh... it is going to be a good day, I can feel it.

 

[Brickjectivity]

If Joe believes in god why do you feel he is wrong and you are right by not believing?

I may feel concerned about Joe, frustrated with Joe, worried he will make mistakes, concerned he won't be loyal...etc. Maybe I'm his uncle, his president for life, his best friend, his son, his girlfriend, his wife, his drunken friend, his military commander, his boss. These are all very different places from which to approach the question, but in each case I may feel concerned about Joe, frustrated with Joe, worried he will make mistakes, concerned he won't be loyal...etc.

I had a friend who kept calling me an idiot for being in a cult, kept saying I was also an idiot for not voting like him. He wouldn't shut up. Wouldn't stop talking down to me, wouldn't let the subject drop. I stopped talking to him. I think a person must have his own mind and opinions. Anyone that doesn't allow this in conversation is no friend.

It actually seems to offend some that Joe believes in god. Why is that?

Its supposed to offend you, much like saying "I'm an atheist" is supposed to offend some people. The question is: are you in touch with your motives. Its easy to think your motive is A when its actually B. Therein lies the problem of worrying about what another person believes. We convince ourselves that we care more about what that person believes than they do, but its a gush of emotion that comes and goes. Its like a great pressure which builds suddenly, a faith in our own ability to think for another.

 

[Valjean]

But it was you who claimed that there are evidence to the contrary. So it is your burden of proof at this time because so far I have not claimed anything. I am only questioning the so called claims that you are making.

Are you concluding that you have no evidence to the contrary either?

OK, you could be right. But I'm being lazy. Can you cite/link to the example, so I can review and comment?
Ta.

 

[Valjean]

Evidence for the supernatural comes usually in the experiences of people both in history and now.

Which is what makes it problematic, as it can't be repeated, examined, measured or observed by outsiders.
It's hard to research the evanescent.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Evidence for the supernatural comes usually in the experiences of people both in history and now.

So you have no evidence. Just a claim with nothing to back it up.

 

[Brian2]

Which is what makes it problematic, as it can't be repeated, examined, measured or observed by outsiders.
It's hard to research the evanescent.

It's hard to research whether evolution happened or not but we believe that because of the evidence.
People having experienced the supernatural is also evidence.

 

[Brian2]

So you have no evidence. Just a claim with nothing to back it up.

Why do you say that what people have experienced is not evidence?

 

[Brian2]

Let's first examine the chain. So, someone posted this:

To which you replied:

Implying, for one, that atheists lack in he "critical thinking" area. And further implying that "there is more to it." Let's just air that "lacking critical thinking" is thought to be a negative thing, correct? And to further state that there is "more to it" in the case of atheists is to imply that there are even more negative attributes that should be attributed to atheists. With me so far?

The "more to it" was a statement about belief not about either atheists or theists.

Theists tend to completely ignore when the idea is presented that they believe in one deity (or set of deities), but reject others based on what ends up being the same exact forms of evidence in existence for those other deities. The evidence I am referring to here being large numbers of believers, various texts of various ages, word-of-mouth relay of information, whole industries devoted to exegesis of said texts and verbal tradition, religious adherence to observances, claims that God or gods exist outside the realm of human perception, etc. etc. etc. Now - to admit to the FACT that these same types of evidence exist for all sorts of deities (past and present, currently worshipped or not) is one thing - but when I bring this idea up, it is most often completely ignored by the theist. Completely. As in - no response whatsoever. They normally choose instead to respond to some easier, less damning part of any post or point having been made. I have NEVER seen this point addressed by any theist who has actually thought about it at all, let alone critically thought about it. This ignoring of the point, in my opinion, represents an unwillingness to even attempt to think about the idea at all - because its implications are likely too damaging to the blinders that are so obviously being worn - blinders that are especially exposed when points like this are explicitly ignored.

Theists are either monotheists or polytheists and either way they probably believe in just one religion for reasons which may be outside the idea of whether there in one God or more. IOW the idea that there could be more than one God is irrelevant to the existence of god or gods. It is a different question.

Again - if you want some more, just ask. It is all too easy to present these types of things that (again - in my opinion) display a complete lack of even having thought at all on a subject. And maybe YOU, particularly, don't commit these types of atrocities... and to that I would say "good for you" and "well done." But we're not talking about just you, or I, are we? No. No we are not. We are talking about the general "theist" or "atheist" when we are making sweeping statements like "these people display a lack of critical thinking and worse."

I was responding to 9-10ths Penguin and his statement about theists lacking in critical thinking. He did not bite but you did. That previous point about one or more gods was easy enough to answer (not that you have accepted it as a good answer however). Bring on another one. I can't say I'll be able to answer it but I'll give it a go.

 

[Valjean]

It's hard to research whether evolution happened or not but we believe that because of the evidence.
People having experienced the supernatural is also evidence.

But it's evidence that can't be observed, repeated, measured or tested. That's a problem.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The "more to it" was a statement about belief not about either atheists or theists.

I'll have to take your word for it. I still can't see how this fits, as someone hailing as "atheist" does not imply anything about that person's positively attributed beliefs in anything in particular. In other words - when someone states they are an atheist, you don't know anything about what they believe except that they don't believe in god(s). Were you saying there is more to being an atheist than just a lack of critical thinking? It just isn't making sense in any context for me.

Theists are either monotheists or polytheists and either way they probably believe in just one religion for reasons which may be outside the idea of whether there in one God or more. IOW the idea that there could be more than one God is irrelevant to the existence of god or gods. It is a different question.

This isn't, at all, relevant to the point I made. What I was getting at is the idea that many theists believe themselves "correct" or justified in their beliefs, and, quite simply, believe that others are not justified in their beliefs in other, related things, because they assume themselves to be correct. An easy to pick-on example is that of monotheists encountering poly-theists, but that is somewhat beside the point. The main point is that the types and amounts of evidence they could produce to establish their "correctness" to others is exactly the same as many other theists (who they don't agree with, or at least don't also then go on to worship those other gods) have for their own beliefs. And yet many theists continue to believe themselves to be the "more correct." When the exact same caliber and quality of evidence is provided for two competing hypotheses, one really should have no choice but to WAIT FOR BETTER EVIDENCE before coming to a conclusion. This is not, at all, what the theist does however. They go all in, in one particular direction, without regard to competing (or lateral) hypotheses making the same sorts of claims with the same sorts of evidence. And this was exactly the sort of behavior I was referring to as displaying a "lack of critical thinking."

I was responding to 9-10ths Penguin and his statement about theists lacking in critical thinking. He did not bite but you did. That previous point about one or more gods was easy enough to answer (not that you have accepted it as a good answer however). Bring on another one. I can't say I'll be able to answer it but I'll give it a go.

Sure... how about ideas that some theists have about God being completely in conflict with their own principles, and yet still going on claiming things like "God is good all the time?"

One of my favorite examples is that of divine, yet secretive reward or punishment. For example, a hurricane hits an area, and some theists (not necessarily YOU, of course - but here, we are talking about theists in general, versus atheists in general, please remember) will say something like "God didn't like what they were doing there." and therefore claim that God smote those people with a hurricane. A good example of this is the Hurricane Katrina situation from years ago - when the hurricane hit New Orleans. I specifically remember many theists making statements about how God wasn't happy about the conditions and activities surrounding Mardi Gras, and that New Orleans was a den of iniquity due to the types of things it was known for during those parties and therefore at other times as well.

Anyway - the idea of a punishment being doled out in that way is completely and utterly asinine. As in, it would take a complete and total idiot to punish (or reward) people in the way that is often ascribed to God. And I can prove that you agree with me - or that if you don't, then you are completely irrational. All it takes is a simple thought exercise.

For an example of reward "the way God does it" in this vein: My son gets good grades in school, and instead of telling him how proud I am, or giving him some incentive directly to try and reinforce what I see as good behavior, I instead, as his parent, decide to drop a $50 bill at a random spot that I know he will walk by on his way to school. I then expect him to make the connection and understand that the $50 must be there because he is getting good grades.

For an example of punishment "the way God does it" in this vein: I covertly see my daughter smoking with a group of her friends, and I have admonished her the risks of smoking and do not agree with her behavior. But, while I could talk with her about it directly, letting her know I saw her, and that I don't agree that smoking is a good thing for her to be doing, I instead DO IT GOD'S WAY and decide that the best course of action is to put spiders under her bed covers that night before she goes to sleep. She will be unhappy about that, and I will leave it to her to make the connection to the smoking she has been doing.

Do you agree with me that the 2 examples above are NOT good ways to handle your gladness or displeasure over your child's activities? Why would so many theists believe that it is okay for God to behave thusly when "blessing" or "punishing" the people of Earth? Is this not a complete failure to think critically about the activities they are so quick to label "good" just because they believe God is responsible?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why do you say that what people have experienced is not evidence?

It is evidence that people claim to have experienced something. It is not evidence that the something actually took place. Or what that something actually might be.