Cobblestones
Devoid of Ettiquette
"Religions are all equally valid." How does atheism figure into that mix though? It's not a religion.
Last edited:
-
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!
To any Atheists, I Have a Few Scenarios for you to Look At.
- Thread starter DarkSun
- Start date
ThereIsNoSpoon
Active Member
Religions all equally valid? I wonder who came up with that strange idea.....
McBell
Unbound
well, wait.
I mean what is the expiration date on friendship?
Six months of no contact?
nine months?
eleven months, 29 days?
Though any "friend" who puts such asinine restrictions for their friendship......
McBell
Unbound
um...
someone who is desperately trying to save face..?
Alceste
Vagabond
Yes, how strange that your close personal friends would tell you you're not being completely irrational. I can't think of any reason they would do that if it wasn't completely true.
Please link to my reasponse to that OP, if you wouldn't mind, so I can compare.
ThereIsNoSpoon
Active Member
Well if you want a "positive" reply to this, then i would say it could be that when communicating with your friends directly you perhaps utilized more means and had more times to convey your message than here.
nonbeliever_92
Well-Known Member
Why is this still raging on? It's utterly obvious that Darksun is wrong.
Saying one believes something to exist without actually having evidence of that something to support that belief is in no way as justifiably equal as saying that one doesn't believe that it does exist.
Person A-"I believe that invisible purple hunchback whales live in the sky and give birth to yellow penguins once every 453 years 3 months 2 weeks 1day and five hours. Every night around 6:45:39pm eastern standard time, they sing "Santa Clause is Coming to Town" completely acapella and then crap gold which rains down from the sky and lands in the backyards of only the 15 richest people in the world." (This person has absolutely no evidence to believe this.)
Person B-"I don't believe this." (No evidence nor reason has been supplied to this person to believe in this.)
The reason that person A is less reasonable and unjustified in their position is that they haven't provided any evidence for their belief. Person B doesn't need to provide evidence for their disbelief because they didn't make the positive claim. They denied the belief of the first person, they didn't postulate a different one.
Saying one believes something to exist without actually having evidence of that something to support that belief is in no way as justifiably equal as saying that one doesn't believe that it does exist.
Person A-"I believe that invisible purple hunchback whales live in the sky and give birth to yellow penguins once every 453 years 3 months 2 weeks 1day and five hours. Every night around 6:45:39pm eastern standard time, they sing "Santa Clause is Coming to Town" completely acapella and then crap gold which rains down from the sky and lands in the backyards of only the 15 richest people in the world." (This person has absolutely no evidence to believe this.)
Person B-"I don't believe this." (No evidence nor reason has been supplied to this person to believe in this.)
The reason that person A is less reasonable and unjustified in their position is that they haven't provided any evidence for their belief. Person B doesn't need to provide evidence for their disbelief because they didn't make the positive claim. They denied the belief of the first person, they didn't postulate a different one.
DarkSun
:eltiT
The fact that she doesn't always agree with me? And we don't speak very often, so it's a bit hard to class her as a friend.
Anyway, have you noticed how I'm not really arguing any more?
DarkSun
:eltiT
Yes, how strange that your close personal friends would tell you you're not being completely irrational. I can't think of any reason they would do that if it wasn't completely true.
Close personal friends...? Meh. Do you always agree with the people you know?
It looks like you didn't respond there. For some reason I thought you did, but it looks like I was wrong. My bad.
DarkSun
:eltiT
Is the purple hunchback invisible? If so, then how do you know it's purple? And if not, then why don't we have evidence against it?
DarkSun
:eltiT
There was also a girl from Utah. Non-theistic. But I think she counts as a friend. But... meh. This is getting off topic.
DarkSun
:eltiT
Yeah, well, you smell. And my lunch box is bigger than yours. <_<
Commoner
Headache
Sure, they could have independently come to the wrong conclusion.
DarkSun
:eltiT
It's possible. :sarcastic
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
Possibly. But whether or not they tell him what they're actually thinking is another thing.
If you get a haircut, do you have friends who will absolutely refuse to tell you if you look ridiculous? I know I do.
They probably weigh in their minds "What's better: To tell him what I actually think and risk conflict with him over something entirely stupid to begin with or to just nod and agree because I'll forget about it later, anyway". I know plenty of people like this. It's not outside the realm of possibility.
Whether or not I actually think this is the case is another story.
DarkSun
:eltiT
I don't think these people would lie. It wouldn't be the first time I've been called an idiot.
The Romanian said that I seemed to be combining logic and emotion, though, and she said that was something I tend to do a lot. Besides that, she agreed with me - that people are going to believe what makes sense to them, whether that's belief or disbelief.
McBell
Unbound
so how many people have to disagree with you before you actually stop and realize that you might actually be wrong?
I mean, it only takes four people to agree with you to make you think that anyone who disagrees must not understand your position...
DarkSun
:eltiT
Fine. I'll make one last post then I'm dropping it.
I've realised that I might be wrong. I've considered it, too, which is why I've asked four people to check whether I was making sense.
But I honestly don't see how I am wrong. I still stand by my claim that there is zero scientific evidence for or against the existence of God - because science doesn't even address God. But people here disagree, which is fair enough. But then they go and post philosophical arguments against the existence of God... which isn't actually scientific evidence. That's not a definitive, empirical proof which claims: "Look, we've absolutely proven beyond any doubt that God doesn't exist through THIS experiment, and through THIS test, so you can all stop believing now. You're wrong". In fact, there is no shred of evidence that disproves even the remotest possibility that a God of some form may exist.
So can't you see that saying: "God probably doesn't exist" is not based on the available evidence at all? If not, please present a scientific journal article which has shown that any God-concept is impossible. Can't do it? That's because there is no proof whatsoever. None.
As said, you can post a philosophical argument like: "God can't exist because this aspect about this person's understanding of God doesn't make any sense to me or anyone else" - but this is not scientific evidence. It's inductive reasoning. It's just your opinion which hasn't been backed by anything except: "this doesn't make sense to me." And besides that, there are as many God-concepts as there are stars in the sky. Each one makes sense to the individual - and each is based on zero empircal, scientific evidence. Even disbelief in God is not based on science.
Science aims to objectively understand physical phenomena by verifiable means. There is nothing verifiable about some supernatural being who can evade empirical tests - so science doesn't claim one way or the other. You might claim that God doesn't exist, but again... this isn't based on any evidence besides what makes sense to you. Likewise, a theist may have a certain perception of God. This is also not based on scientific evidence. Just an opinion. Nothing more.
So considering the scientific evidence alone (Read that three times if you need to. Whatever you do, just make sure it sinks in)... evidence which is based on things which can be proven empirically... theists and atheists alike have zero evidence to support their views. Therefore, objectively speaking (that is, without bias - and based on the lack of scientific evidence for both sides), atheists and theists are equally justified.
This is essentially the same as saying that all religions are equally justified, unless the available evidence disproves what is being said. Then to disagree with that evidence is to enact fundamentalism, which is never a completely good thing.
And yes, if you want to go to that extreme, it is essentially the same as saying: "Belief in the tooth fairy is equally justified to belief in the Easter Bunny." Yes. It sounds ludicrous to us. But unless someone stops stealing your teeth or putting chocolate everywhere after breaking into your house, there is no proof either way. Therefore, we are both equally justified. Whether you or I think it sounds silly is just our opinion. Nothing more.
Just to sum up, I'm sick of this guys. Feel free to tear this post apart based on your opinion on whether you think I'm right or not. But don't expect a response. I'm not going to open this thread again.
Last edited: