Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[Revoltingest]

The difference, of course, being that I LOVE you. I would step in front of a car for you to trust Christ, you wouldn't give me a cold glass of water if I was drowning!

I wouldn't think you'd want water at such a time.

 

[viole]

That is an agnostic. An atheist doesn't have any beliefs regarding what's in the box or if the number of items are even or odd.Theism is believing there are one or more gods in the box.

Well, that is not completely true.

We can, at least, say that that box contans either an even or odd number of things. Assuming that the content is not fractional nor an irrational number.

For instance, I know it contains an even number of items.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Revoltingest]

Well if you're down to 50/50 now at least I have you coming around!

But since God frowns on floozies and gambling, maybe we are better to abstain after all...

People often mistake a choice between 2 alternatives as each having a 50% probability.
They mistakenly assume it's like a coin filp.
This is not always so.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's atheists who came up with an make the argument

No, that was you. By misunderstanding the argument, you turned it into something that was never argued.

Honest communication requires an effort on your part to figure out what the other side is trying to say. This means:

- thinking through the arguments that they're giving you.
- not assuming that they use your preferred definitions of words... especially after they tell you the definition they actually use.

I encourage you to read this article:

Principle of charity - Wikipedia

In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity requires interpreting a speaker's statements to be rational and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.[1] In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies or falsehoods to the others' statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available.

Don't go running off half-cocked assuming that the other side intends the interpretation (or, in your case, often the misinterpretation) that paints them as foolish or dishonest. Instead, start from the premise that they have something sincere and valid to say. Often, when you assume that someone is being dishonest, it's just because you've failed to understand the honest message that the person has tried to express to you.

Or at least, that's my impression from your posts on RF.

 

[1137]

No, that was you. By misunderstanding the argument, you turned it into something that was never argued.

Honest communication requires an effort on your part to figure out what the other side is trying to say. This means:

- thinking through the arguments that they're giving you.
- not assuming that they use your preferred definitions of words... especially after they tell you the definition they actually use.

I encourage you to read this article:

Principle of charity - Wikipedia



Don't go running off half-cocked assuming that the other side intends the interpretation (or, in your case, often the misinterpretation) that paints them as foolish or dishonest. Instead, start from the premise that they have something sincere and valid to say. Often, when you assume that someone is being dishonest, it's just because you've failed to understand the honest message that the person has tried to express to you.

Or at least, that's my impression from your posts on RF.

I honestly can't believe the lengths you guys go to in order to avoid admitting you have a belief. It's so simple, and the best part is nobody but other atheists will hold it against you, because you guys are the only ones afraid of the word! While it's endlessly entertaining, like a creationist who believes they're scientific, it's really sad.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I honestly can't believe the lengths you guys go to in order to avoid admitting you have a belief.

Again with the mischaracterizations. I have plenty of beliefs and I've never claimed otherwise.

 

[viole]

I honestly can't believe the lengths you guys go to in order to avoid admitting you have a belief. It's so simple, and the best part is nobody but other atheists will hold it against you, because you guys are the only ones afraid of the word! While it's endlessly entertaining, like a creationist who believes they're scientific, it's really sad.

I don't like the word "atheist" myself.

It seems to acknowledge the very thing we are denying. In my case it is so self evident that there is no god, that using a name for it looks a bit silly. It would be like calling you an a-fairist on account of you not believing in the existence of fairies, presumably.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I honestly can't believe the lengths you guys go to in order to avoid admitting you have a belief. It's so simple, and the best part is nobody but other atheists will hold it against you, because you guys are the only ones afraid of the word! While it's endlessly entertaining, like a creationist who believes they're scientific, it's really sad.

I can't believe the lengths that you guys go to in order to characterize atheism as a belief. Why the need to equivocate atheism and theism if belief is such a strength? Seems like people like you only reveal a sense of insecurity about belief, and thus, need to "bring atheists down to your level," by making their views equivalent to yours. Seems pretty silly when you think about it.

 

[viole]

I can't believe the lengths that you guys go to in order to characterize atheism as a belief. Why the need to equivocate atheism and theism if belief is such a strength? Seems like people like you only reveal a sense of insecurity about belief, and thus, need to "bring atheists down to your level," by making their views equivalent to yours. Seems pretty silly when you think about it.

I could not have formulated that better.

Goes along the lines of: we may be a bit silly to believe in things without evidence, but you atheists are not much better.

It is, de facto, a denigration of the word "belief", and a pathetic attempt to share responsabilities.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1137]

Again with the mischaracterizations. I have plenty of beliefs and I've never claimed otherwise.

This makes it all the more ridiculous that you can't admit to this one.

 

[Cobol]

When you look at the history of what we know about the world, you see a noticeable pattern. Natural explanations of things have been replacing supernatural explanations of them over and over. As we understood the world better, and learned to observe it more carefully, the explanations based on religion were replaced by ones based on physical cause and effect.
The number of times that a supernatural explanation of a phenomenon has been replaced by a natural explanation? Many thousands of times. There is no natural explanation of a phenomenon that has been replaced by a supernatural one. Thats just a fact. Sure, people come up with new supernatural "explanations" for stuff all the time. But explanations with gathered, tested, reviewed and consistent evidence? That would be none.

 

[1137]

I don't like the word "atheist" myself.

It seems to acknowledge the very thing we are denying. In my case it is so self evident that there is no god, that using a name for it looks a bit silly. It would be like calling you an a-fairist on account of you not believing in the existence of fairies, presumably.

Ciao

- viole

That's fair. I don't think I have the faith to be so certain of an unknown, but good on you!

 

[1137]

I can't believe the lengths that you guys go to in order to characterize atheism as a belief. Why the need to equivocate atheism and theism if belief is such a strength? Seems like people like you only reveal a sense of insecurity about belief, and thus, need to "bring atheists down to your level," by making their views equivalent to yours. Seems pretty silly when you think about it.

Seems to be projecting, you think a belief "brings one down a level." I'm simply interested in honesty, honest positions and honest discussion. Atheism dishonestly pretends it does not find "no gods" less likely than "gods," despite this being what atheism is in real philosophy of religion. What a joke.

 

[1137]

When you look at the history of what we know about the world, you see a noticeable pattern. Natural explanations of things have been replacing supernatural explanations of them over and over. As we understood the world better, and learned to observe it more carefully, the explanations based on religion were replaced by ones based on physical cause and effect.
The number of times that a supernatural explanation of a phenomenon has been replaced by a natural explanation? Many thousands of times. There is no natural explanation of a phenomenon that has been replaced by a supernatural one. Thats just a fact. Sure, people come up with new supernatural "explanations" for stuff all the time. But explanations with gathered, tested, reviewed and consistent evidence? That would be none.

I think you'll find most religions do not believe in a supernatural, they simply reject that all natural things fit into physicalism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't like the word "atheist" myself.

It seems to acknowledge the very thing we are denying. In my case it is so self evident that there is no god, that using a name for it looks a bit silly. It would be like calling you an a-fairist on account of you not believing in the existence of fairies, presumably.

Ciao

- viole

I see it as a lot like "non-smoker": it's the default position so in a way, it's silly to call attention to it, but it's still useful when you're in a society filled with smokers.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This makes it all the more ridiculous that you can't admit to this one.

What one?

 

[viole]

That's fair. I don't think I have the faith to be so certain of an unknown, but good on you!

So, you are an a-fairist, after all. Or are you agnostic about the existence of invisible fairies in your garden?

Ciao

- viole

 

[suncowiam]

Atheists, IMO, serve two "gods." Time and mindless chance.

They believe if you give a pile of rocks enough time it will turn into a polar bear.

They also think the probabilities of some organism can create an eyeball or a pancreas when once there was none is no big thing. Even if the chances of that occurring (without an I.D.) are one in a quintillion. They still hold strong to their theories.

Also, too many of them become easily offended if we appear to ridicule them.

Nor can they even agree how anything even occurred, since the evidence is so sketchy. I like what agnostic Dr. David Berlinski said of that. > > The fundamental core of Darwinian doctrine, the philosopher Daniel Dennett has buoyantly affirmed, "is no longer in dispute among scientists." Such is the party line, useful on those occasions when biologists must present a single face to their public. But it was to the dead that Darwin pointed for confirmation of his theory; the fact that paleontology does not entirely support his doctrine has been a secret of long standing among paleontologists. "The known fossil record," Steven Stanley observes, "fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."
Small wonder, then, that when the spotlight of publicity is dimmed, evolutionary biologists evince a feral streak, Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, Richard Dawkins, and John Maynard Smith abusing one another roundly like wrestlers grappling in the dark.

What does this have to do with the box analogy?

How are you going to prove what's inside the box? Isn't the best way to prove this by opening the box? No speculating. No guessing. Until then it's OK to suggest we don't know for sure what's inside the box.

You do know that creation is different than evolution? No body can answer how life started. But we sure can see and determine how life evolved.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Seems to be projecting, you think a belief "brings one down a level." I'm simply interested in honesty, honest positions and honest discussion. Atheism dishonestly pretends it does not find "no gods" less likely than "gods," despite this being what atheism is in real philosophy of religion. What a joke.

And plenty of atheists have told you that their position is "I don't know." I don't find "no gods" less likely than "gods." I have no rational reason to conclude either, so I don't. Why do you ignore atheists who hold this position? That's a rhetorical question.

 

[viole]

I see it as a lot like "non-smoker": it's the default position so in a way, it's silly to call attention to it, but it's still useful when you're in a society filled with smokers.

Well, yes. I agree. If the world would contain fairists, then a-fairism would assume some sort of meaning.

Ciao

- viole