Smoke
Done here.
Gnomon, can't you see that "none" is a favorite color? Whether you have a favorite color or don't have a favorite color, you still have a favorite color.
-
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 the Anti-Religious
- Thread starter Storm
- Start date
Smoke
Done here.
They don't yet understand that it is hopeless, They're still hoping for a glimmer of intelligence or honesty in their interlocutors, and still imagine someone might actually try to understand what they mean, whether they agree with it or not.
DarkSun
:eltiT
LOL!
Sarcasm aside, though, I don't think you understand what has been said.
Do you view God to be non-existent? If so, then your view is a belief because the words are interchangable in this context.
Now, I am utterly perplexed as to why this is such a big deal. You believe something to be true: that there is no God. So what? You also believe this without any evidence? And to believe anything without evidence is an act of faith, by definition. So you believe that God isn't real and you have faith in that notion, too.
If you disagree with the definitions of faith and belief then take it up with the English language. It's not my problem.
Now. Can I ask you a serious question? Are you absolutely positive that you're not rejecting what's being said outright, just because you don't like being considered equal to theists?
Now I realise that it's silly of me to ask, because that would be utterly arrogant. But that's really the only explanation I can come up with which explains why a lot of people can't see that believing that God doesn't exist, is a belief. (And not believing that God exists is the same thing. Sorry, again, take your problem up with the English language). It also explains why people are rejecting the idea, that believing that God does not exist without evidence, is an act of faith, by definition.
Is it really that big a deal?
Last edited:
rageoftyrael
Veritas
Theists are just so desperate that atheists have to be the same. They absolutely must bring us down to the same level. You see, if they can get us to admit that not believing in something is a form of faith, well, then, we're just as illogical as them, right? It's all about making themselves feel better. It isn't even whether or not they actually believe what they're saying(i don't think they really do), or whether they are right, it's just about salving their wounds.
I'm not saying we are better than theists. I'm saying that theists know that the atheists view point of the world is a more realistic and accurate view point. Unfortunately, theists have mostly been indoctrinated into their beliefs, and mostly don't have the willpower to pull themselves out of the slump that is theism. So, instead of actually thinking about the problem, their beliefs, they are trying to one up us in other areas. Like, "hey, he has irrational beliefs too". We don't, but it makes them feel better to say so.
Wow, that comes off as really condescending, but i'm going to put it up anyway, lol.
I'm not saying we are better than theists. I'm saying that theists know that the atheists view point of the world is a more realistic and accurate view point. Unfortunately, theists have mostly been indoctrinated into their beliefs, and mostly don't have the willpower to pull themselves out of the slump that is theism. So, instead of actually thinking about the problem, their beliefs, they are trying to one up us in other areas. Like, "hey, he has irrational beliefs too". We don't, but it makes them feel better to say so.
Wow, that comes off as really condescending, but i'm going to put it up anyway, lol.
DarkSun
:eltiT
Gnomon, can't you see that "none" is a favorite color? Whether you have a favorite color or don't have a favorite color, you still have a favorite color.
Nice straw men.
DarkSun
:eltiT
It's not about bringing anyone down to anyone's level. It's about realising that we're all equals, but with slightly different perceptions.
And I don't think any point of view can be more or less "accurate", in the sense you're describing, unless supported by empirical evidence. Since belief and disbelief in God are both supported by no scientific evidence at all, and instead by individual perception - all viewpoints regarding God should be considered equal. Otherwise, you would be presenting bias.
That's my take anyway.
Sorry if I've offended anyone, by the way.
Last edited:
Commoner
Headache
It's not about bringing anyone down to anyone's level. It's about realising that we're all equals, but with slightly different perceptions.
And I don't think any point of view can be more or less "accurate", in the sense you're describing, unless supported by empirical evidence. Since belief and disbelief in God are both supported by no scientific evidence at all, and instead by individual perception - all viewpoints regarding God should be considered equal. Otherwise, you would be presenting bias.
That's my take anyway.
Sorry if I've offended anyone, by the way.
The only problem with that is that not all propositions are created equal. If I tell you I have an invisible friend, it is not equally resonable to believe that claim or to disbelieve it. Yet, there is no direct evidence that I'm not telling the truth. One view is clearly more resonable, isn't it?
I'm making the claim - an extraordinary one, and I should be able to back it up. If I can't, it's more resonable not to believe me.
Do you see what I mean?
Last edited:
DarkSun
:eltiT
Absolutely. You're saying that if someone makes a claim which you perceive as ridiculous, then you should expect that person to give proof, otherwise they will be met with skepticism.
Kind of like with God. You think that any theist who states that God does exist is making a ridiculous claim. Therefore, you believe that they should present proof, otherwise that claim should be rejected. It's a ludicrous idea, hey?
Now... can you see what I'm saying?
What if we reversed the situation here.
What if you claimed, to a theist, that God doesn't exist. They would automatically see that view as ridiculous because their own perception of the world disagrees with it. They would employ the same logic you did, and demand empirical proof for the inexistence of God, because they see your stance as ridiculous.
But in essense, since neither of you can produce empirical evidence for your stances, both people are equally justified in feeling the way they do, in the logical sense at least.
Does that make sense?
Last edited:
Commoner
Headache
Absolutely. You're saying that if someone makes a claim which you perceive as ridiculous, then you should expect that person to give proof, otherwise they will be met with skepticism.
Kind of like with God. You think that any theist who states that God does exist is making a ridiculous claim. Therefore, you believe that they should present proof, otherwise that claim should be met with skepticism.
Now... can you see what I'm saying?
What if we reversed the situation here.
What if you claimed, to a theist, that God doesn't exist. They would automatically see that view as ridiculous because of their own perception of the world disagrees with it. They would employ the same logic you did, and demand empirical proof for the inexistence of God, because they see your stance as ridiculous.
But in essense, since neither of you can produce empirical evidence for your stances, both people are equally justified in feeling the say they do, in the logical sense at least.
Does that make sense?
How would the theist have been able to come to the conclusion that god exists in the first place. We've already agreed (I think) that when there's a lack of evidence, skepticism is appropriate. We've also agreed (I think) that there is no evidence for god.
Just because someone has already incorrectly accepted a premise (without evidence) doesn't mean that I am not more resonable for rejecting the premise.
By your logic, I would actually have been justified in saying that you have faith for not believing in my invisible friend.
EDIT: BTW, I never said it has to be a "ridiculous" claim. I could be right about my invisible friend and I certainly didn't mean to say that I would have been lying. I might have been perfectly sincere in my "belief" that I have an invisible friend, just as a theist might be about god. That doens't lend any creedence to my claim and to reject it still requires no faith on your part.
Last edited:
DarkSun
:eltiT
How the theist came to their conclusion differs depending on the person.
Personally, I used to be agnostic, like the rest of my family. I'd rather not tell you why I changed my mind, because you will think I'm mental. Hell, I would.
Suffice to say, the way they have come to perceive reality has led them to believe that a God does exist, and must. Whether you agree isn't the case in point. Just accept that this is how a theist sees things.
Now, since they see God as existent, using your logic, anyone who says otherwise should be required to present empirical proof. To them, you would have incorrectly accepted a a false premise (ie, that God doesn't exist), and that you must provide proof for such a thing. Otherwise, you should be discredited.
Can't you see that this is exactly the same logic being used, except the roles have been reversed?
Good night, hey?
Last edited:
Commoner
Headache
How the theist came to their conclusion differs depending on the person.
Personally, I used to be agnostic, as did the rest of my family. I'd rather not tell you why I changed my mind, because you will think I'm mental. Hell, I would.
Suffice to say, the way they have come to perceive reality has led them to believe that a God does exist, and must. Whether you agree isn't the case in point. Just accept that this is how a theist sees things.
Now, since they see God as existent, using your logic, anyone who says otherwise should be required to present empirical proof.
The rest of my argument I have stated countless times. I'm not going to be bothered repeating myself.
Good night, hey?
Sorry, I've edited my last post after you've already quoted it, so there some more info there.
I see my invisible friend as existent (just for the sake of argument). I'm sincere in my belief. But even I, realizing that my invisible friend is only visible to me, would not say that you have faith if you did't believe me. Just the opposite, I would consider you had faith if you did believe me, even though I couldn't produce any evidence (or not sufficient to convince you).
The "god exists" claim came first. "God does not exist" is a rejection of that claim - it does not make any sense without the first one, there would be no "atheists" without "theists". That's why we say that the burden of proof is on the theist. The claims are not equal, they are not independant.
Last edited:
DarkSun
:eltiT
But how do you know that you're not the one who's 'deluded'? Not that I think deluded is the right word.
Anyway, I really am off now.
Take care.
Byes.
rageoftyrael
Veritas
See, just because people were born with a belief, doesn't make it reasonable. I've noticed that many people who actually take a step outside of their belief, and look at it rationally, tend to stop believing. Why? Because religion, and the belief in it, is something that is inbuilt within us. I don't know the specifics, but it is kind of a social mind thing. it doesn't make it real, in fact, if you think about it, it makes it less likely to be true.
Either way, there is actual rational belief, based on actually looking for evidence, and there is irrational belief, where evidence was never looked for in the first place. That is why we reject your claim that the two beliefs are equal. The evidence, or lack thereof, need not come into it, if the ones with the belief in something without evidence never even looked for it.
oh, random plug, i just wrote a kind of on the spot storyline, and if you are interested, i would love it if you guys would take a look, and tell me what you think. Thanks!
Either way, there is actual rational belief, based on actually looking for evidence, and there is irrational belief, where evidence was never looked for in the first place. That is why we reject your claim that the two beliefs are equal. The evidence, or lack thereof, need not come into it, if the ones with the belief in something without evidence never even looked for it.
oh, random plug, i just wrote a kind of on the spot storyline, and if you are interested, i would love it if you guys would take a look, and tell me what you think. Thanks!
Commoner
Headache
Well, it doesn't even matter who's right and who's wrong in this case. I might have an actual invisible friend, that's not the point.
Once you've established that there is no evidence for a claim (or rather, unless you've established that there is evidence for a claim) - it doesn't take any faith to reject it, but it takes faith to accept it. You might be correct, but if you accepted the claim without any evidence, you can hardly be considered resonable.
Whether there is any evidence for a god or not (or my invisible friend), that's really another subject.
.
Last edited:
richardlowellt
Well-Known Member
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
OK, maybe what's going on here is that you need an explanation for whatever it is that made you a believer and considering your experience you would be simply applying faith to believe God does not exist because you feel you have justification for believing. I've had experiences that would lead people to believe in God too but I've done the research and have after 25 years found a natural explanation for such experiences. In other words, I don't have proof God doesn't exist but I do have alternative explanations for my own personal experiences so it doesn't require the same amount of faith for me to doubt God's existence as it would be for me to accept it. In fact, I don't have a reason to accept the notion of a God anymore than I do for leprechauns, and no matter how hard I could try, there isn't enough faith in the world that would allow me to believe in such things.
DarkSun
:eltiT
That's not what I'm looking for at all.
But I'm tired of explaining myself. Even after this many pages of discussion, only one person has correctly addressed the point I've been making. And even then it was because he thought I was making a logical fallacy. Pretty much everyone else seems to be repeating the same thing on rerun, even though it doesn't invalidate what I've been saying.
So, I give up.
Last edited:
themadhair
Well-Known Member
It was indeed a logical fallacy. You wanted to equivocate between two fundamentally different things, and you used the word faith in its broadest, and most nuance-ignoring, sense in order to make the equivocation. It is as close to a textbook example of the equivocation fallacy as you are ever likely to get.
You also ignored the examples where I explicitly highlighted this fallacy. To give another one:
1) I have faith that my wife wont kill me in my sleep.
2) I have faith that DarkSun isnt actually a person but an extremely advanced artificial intelligence that is practicing its diplomacy skills before it embarks on an attempt to take over the internet.
Using the same fallacy as you did, I could claim that both of these claims are doing the same thing and are of equal reasonableness.
While I didnt know the terminology at the time I had realised the problem with this line of reasoning when I was about 8 after my PP tried to use it on me.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
You should give up and realize that words have more than one meaning and varying uses. Also, there is no such thing as proof or evidence for the non existence of things, it's a misnomer, so you are misled on more than one count.That's not what I'm looking for at all.
But I'm tired of explaining myself. Even after this many pages of discussion, only one person has correctly addressed the point I've been making. And even then it was because he thought I was making a logical fallacy. Pretty much everyone else seems to be repeating the same thing on rerun, even though it doesn't invalidate what I've been saying.
So, I give up.
Commoner
Headache
That's not what I'm looking for at all.
But I'm tired of explaining myself. Even after this many pages of discussion, only one person has correctly addressed the point I've been making. And even then it was because he thought I was making a logical fallacy. Pretty much everyone else seems to be repeating the same thing on rerun, even though it doesn't invalidate what I've been saying.
So, I give up.
I'm sorry if we've managed to discourage you from the discussion, that certainly wasn't my intention.
The reason we are so opposed to this idea of it being equally resonable to believe in a proposition without evidence as it is to disbelieve a proposition without evidence is that it is a very popular argument used by christian appologists with which they try and bring blind faith and skepticism to the same level - usually by deliberately misusing words like "faith" and "belief". The usual end-goal of this strategy is to say that atheism is just another religion.
I think I and others have answered all your arguments and have explained quite clearly why this idea is false. I hope you haven't (mis)interpreted that as an attack on you - our strong opinions on this matter are simply the result of the countless number of times we've been hit below the belt with this disingenuous idea.