To the Anti-Religious

[Commoner]

There is no evidence for the claim: "God does not exist", either.

Of course not, but that claim is not a claim on its own - it's not independant of the claim "god exists". Don't you see the difference?

You couldn't one day just decide and say "god doesn't exist" if there were no one that has already claimed at one point that "god existed". It would be nonsensical - it would be the same as making up a word that describes nothing (and is not meant to describe anythig) and then saying that doesn't exist. In fact, it would be the same as simply claiming "it" doesn't exist without even defining what "it" is.

Just because you place the rejection in the form of a statement - like "god does not exist", doesn't make it a claim on its own. Its a reaction to the positive claim that "god exists".

I don't know if I can put it any clearer than that.

 

[Magic Man]

Actually. No. "I don't believe in God" is an absolute statement which says one thing. "I'm not sure whether God exists because there is no evidence either way" -- is a completely different statement which says another. Which statement do you actually mean?

Please note, if you pick the first option, then you are believing something without any evidence. According to Oxford University's English Dictionary, to then claim that not believing in God is not an act of faith, goes against the very definition of faith.

This puts you on equal standing with theists.

Now, I think this is what the real issue is. Most people posting here seemingly like to think that they are superior to theists. They think anyone who believes in God is using flawed logic because there is no proof for the existence of God. And because of this, they will vehemently deny any claim that we are equals.

Rather arrogant, don't you think?

Thankfully, not all atheists are like this. I showed this discussion to an atheist I'm really close friends with, and while agreeing with me, she found it really amusing (and ironic) that all the atheists on this thread were just as vehemently defending their right to feel superior to theists, as any theist would be with atheists.

What the hell are you talking about? Was this supposed to be in response to the comment from me that you quoted? I can't see any relation between the two.

Let's try this:

I don't believe there is a theistic god, meaning I think that there is no theistic God, meaning that I allow for the possibility that I'm wrong and there is a theistic God, but I'd place all of my bets against that actuality. Can you maybe explain where there's arrogance in that, or else stop this nonsense?

 

[DarkSun]

What the hell are you talking about? Was this supposed to be in response to the comment from me that you quoted? I can't see any relation between the two.

Let's try this:

I don't believe there is a theistic god, meaning I think that there is no theistic God, meaning that I allow for the possibility that I'm wrong and there is a theistic God, but I'd place all of my bets against that actuality. Can you maybe explain where there's arrogance in that, or else stop this nonsense?

I apologise. There is no arrogance in what you are suggesting at all.

If everyone agrees with you that they don't "know" for a fact whether God exists or not, and that they could be wrong, then I will revoke every single thing I have said.

 

[DarkSun]

Of course not, but that claim is not a claim on its own - it's not independant of the claim "god exists". Don't you see the difference?

You couldn't one day just decide and say "god doesn't exist" if there were no one that has already claimed at one point that "god existed". It would be nonsensical - it would be the same as making up a word that describes nothing (and is not meant to describe anythig) and then saying that doesn't exist. In fact, it would be the same as simply claiming "it" doesn't exist without even defining what "it" is.

Just because you place the rejection in the form of a statement - like "god does not exist", doesn't make it a claim on its own. Its a reaction to the positive claim that "god exists".

I don't know if I can put it any clearer than that.

Perhaps the problem is mine. Maybe I don't understand how rejecting a positive statement, and claiming it to be false, does not entail making a statement of your own. Could you please explain?

 

[dogsgod]

Not believing superstitious dogma is superior to believing such nonsense. There's nothing arrogant about stating the obvious. Make a silly argument and expect that non belief is equivalent to the beliefs of the naive and gullible says more about your belief system than it does about the actual existence of things.

 

[DarkSun]

Not believing superstitious dogma is superior to believing such nonsense. There's nothing arrogant about stating the obvious. Make a silly argument and expect that non belief is equivalent to the beliefs of the naive and gullible says more about your belief system than it does about the actual existence of things.

Okay. To you, the beliefs are obviously ridiculous. But this is not the case for the believer. And since neither you nor they have absolute proof to support their view, shouldn't both be equally justified? I mean, to the individual, it would seem that one way or the other is going to make more sense - but this does not mean they have more evidence than someone who disagrees with them. It just means their individual perception has led them to believe whatever they do.

And yes, to claim that your opinion is better than another person's, when both people have equal amounts of empirical evidence supporting their view, is bigotry by definition. How is it not arrogance?

 

[dogsgod]

Okay. To you, the beliefs are obviously ridiculous. But this is not the case for the believer. And since neither you nor they have absolute proof to support their view, shouldn't both be equally justified? I mean, to the individual, it would seem that one way or the other is going to make more sense - but this does not mean they have more evidence than someone who disagrees with them. It just means their individual perception has led them to believe whatever they do.

And yes, to claim that your opinion is better than another person's, when both people have equal amounts of empirical evidence supporting their view, is bigotry by definition. How is it not arrogance?

Accepting prescribed sets of beliefs is inferior to critical analysis.

 

[DarkSun]

Accepting prescribed sets of beliefs is inferior to critical analysis.

Who says belief in God is always "prescribed"?

And aren't most of our views influenced by society anyway?

 

[ManTimeForgot]

And none of this has any bearing on whether those ideas are true or not. And given that I live in a country where an oath to a higher power is required to hold public office I reject outright that this doesn’t involve me. Whenever someone attempts to place an idea beyond scrutiny in the way you are doing it makes me suspicious.

I would contend that scrutiny and attacking the worth of the individual holding the belief/idea are two different things. I would also contend that scrutiny when not desired by the other party is merely begging for unnecessary conflict. I do, however, have to weigh in on the side of truth. The "caveat" of personal truth is a condition that is much harder to satisfy than I think you are giving me credit for. Most people don't actually believe what they profess to believe. If you claim to believe something, but when you act you disregard the idea entirely, then you do not actually believe. Just how many "abrahmistic" religious people act as though they are being watched and judged constantly by an omniscient and omnipotent being, his minions, and entirely malevolent forces?

It is so good to know that you regard my life as a failure.

Erm... well its either that or your reading skills? All ideologies fail when taken to sufficient extremes; nihilism, sollipsism, and skepticism are no exception to this. But in the case of nihilism, sollipsism, and skepticism they lead to practical, emotional, intellectual, and "spiritual" dead ends. Or do you mean to suggest that you actually believe that I am merely a figment of your imagination; that you know nothing other than that you exist; that life is completely devoid of meaning and that in the end all comes to naught; and that cause and effect is an illusion? Have you ever tried to put any of those ideas into practice? I haven't tested to see if I could walk through walls since they are "merely" a figment of my imagination recently... And I don't know about you but I find Hume's work on epistemology irksome. Yeah, alright so we exactly observe cause and effect we only see "correlation in time," but so what? What else do we have to work with?

Why do I have to respect the ideas of another person? I have to respect their right to hold those ideas, but I certainly do not have to respect the ideas themselves. If you want to construe this as a lack of respect for other people then fill your boots. Just don’t expect others to buy into it.

I think there is a distinction between welcome and unwelcome scrutiny. I also think there are certain levels of change people are willing and able to accept. Baby steps.

There is also some amount of irony in this point given the inherent lack of respect for non-believers inherent in many commonplace theologies. This is a case of point the finger at me and having three fingers pointing back.

I make no apologies for such behavior either. I am not about to start pointing fingers. I do, however, think that an attitude of "you disrespected me first so now I don't have to respect you" is unproductive at best.

Are you seriously making this analogy? Look at what you are saying about believers with this.

Not just believers mind you, and yes I am making this analogy. We all have our own methods of coping. Deep down we are all afraid of the "dark." At the start, as children, we fear the dark because seeing is believing. Most people progress beyond this. But this world/universe/reality is a frightening place. The world strikes us as an unflinchingly and unapologetically biased place with soul-grinding monotony and hardship. The universe is a cold, remote, distant, and dark void seemingly devoid of purpose or place for us. If deep down you are not afraid, then I would look at you as one of three things: ignorant (don't realize just how unknown things are), hubristic (falsely attribute greater knowledge to yourself and to a lesser extent humanity than we actually have), or are unable to relate to the human condition (sociopath, brain damage, etc). We all have our coping mechanisms, and robbing us of them without benefit in return hardly seems fair or moral.

Pretending such unknowns don’t exist, or labelling them with terms like god, isn’t dealing with them now is it? And regardless, none of this has any bearing on whether those ideas are true or not. No idea should be beyond the realm of discussion.

I certainly agree that no idea should be beyond the realm of discussion. And coping is not the same as resolution if that is something you were claiming. But I think you need to re-examine just how much "faith" you place in science. At the end of the day we have "our best guess" on how things are. Some are fairly certain (gravity exists), but somethings are little better than religion in how attached people are to them. Big Bang theory? Ever wondered why Quasars in deep space show no sign of time dilation at all? Noting that something is the "best explanation we have" does not mean it should be beyond scrutiny. Scrutiny runs both ways. If one is to be critical of propositions that are disagreed with, then in order to not be a hypocrite one must be equally critical of propositions that are agreed with.

My point here is not to undermine the value of critical thinking and judgment (I would prefer it if we all practiced critical thinking and sound judgment), but rather to challenge you to empathize with "those people." "Those people" are not a different species from you. They are human beings and are guilty of having the same foibles we all do.

If an idea cannot stand up to scrutiny then I don’t have any qualms about calling that idea out. By painting believers as extremely fragile in this way is more insulting than anything I have ever wrote on this forum. And, I really have to insist on this, attacking an idea is not the same as attacking a person. Learn the difference.

There is a difference between debate and shouting at someone until they relent too... Believers are not "extremely fragile" any more so than any one of us is. We all cope in different ways. My "irrational beliefs" happen to be something more "mundane" than supernatural, but they are none-the-less irrational. I act as though I possess knowledge of my fellow humans that I do not; affording them more than just the benefit of the doubt. And this does make a difference in how I interact with people. So if someone really and truly believes that Jesus Christ is the savior of humanity, and this helps them get through each day without being slowly ground down by the weight of fear and uncertainty, then I say let them.

Work slowly. Work within the confines of their world-view if you wish to challenge them. Most people do not actually truly believe what they claim to. Work at them on the right issues and they will almost always relent. Let them find that which is really truthful for them, and then you will be doing them a favor by freeing them from imposed falsehood.

If people want to hold to an idea they have every right to do so. If you want to paint me as someone who doesn’t respect that right then feel free. I will attack the ideas purely because I value honesty. People who believe will almost certainly still be believers after interacting with me – but I am simply not prepared to leave my intellectual honesty at the door when confronted with a flawed idea. And I think it outrageous that any person be asked to reign in their critical thinking for fear of causing offence. Every day millions of ideas are attacked and debated on forums all over the internet – and this particular idea should be no different.

Since when did this thread go from a “presenting of evidence” to “leave our precious idea alone because we are too fragile”? It does amaze me when, simply by being honest to both myself and others, I get told that I should stop using my critical thinking.

I would ask you to first "honestly" evaluate yourself with that critical eye of yours. Do you value honesty or "my premises are better than yours?" Not everything scientific is hard and fast true nor even all that likely; it is always and ever shall be "our best fit" even if that "best fit" is only 3% likely (which is better than 2%). It is very easy to "critically evaluate" those things which we do not hold to be true, but it is far more difficult and shows real conviction when you critically evaluate yourself and those things you believe. So intellectual honesty? Absolutely. But I would contend that before throwing stones one should make sure that they do not live in a glass house. Are you really prepared to claim that you have no irrational beliefs or meaningful symbols in your life which help keep you going?

Don't we all have symbols and "irrationalities" which we cling to? The more important question then, is are we prepared to give them up and do we have anything to replace them with when we do? Critique without advice on what to replace an idea with is amoral at best. Don't reign in your intellectual honesty with self or others. But also do not forget the human element. It is very easy to rationalize ideologies to the point that we forget that we are dealing with humans rather than walking computers.

MTF

 

[dogsgod]

Who says belief in God is always "prescribed"?

And aren't most of our views influenced by society anyway?

Most of society believed the world was flat for most of civilization. They were wrong and eventually proven wrong. Critical analysis of information before formulating any sort of belief is superior to the acceptance of widely held views, regardless of how many people believe.

 

[DarkSun]

Most of society believed the world was flat for most of civilization. They were wrong and eventually proven wrong. Critical analysis of information before formulating any sort of belief is superior to the acceptance of widely held views, regardless of how many people believe.

Please note that the belief that the world is flat was actually proven wrong. Until proof of God's inexistence is given, these two scenarios are incomparable - and belief or disbelief in God will remain equally valid interpretations of reality.

Also, please stop using the phrase "critical analysis", because that implies anyone who comes up with an alternative view to yours isn't looking at things right. Again, this is arrogance. And since you can't "critically analyse" anything in this scenario, it really doesn't fit in context anyway.

 

[DarkSun]

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 like this post.

 

[Commoner]

Perhaps the problem is mine. Maybe I don't understand how rejecting a positive statement, and claiming it to be false, does not entail making a statement of your own. Could you please explain?

Rejecting a positive statement is claiming that it is false. I agree that it is a statement, what I meant was, the statement does not make sense by itself - in contrast, saying "god exists" is a completely independent statement. It is practically impossible to demonstrate that something absolutely doesn't exists or has existed, anywhere, at any time, but it is much easier to demonstrate that something does exist. So anybody claiming that "god does not exist" is likely not claiming to have looked under every stone and behind every tree in the universe and found no sign of god - rather, he/she is claiming that he will not except the premise that god does exist, until someone can demonstrate it.

Yes, if you structure it as something like "God does not exist" it is actually a positive claim (a claim about reality), but by structure alone, what it really means in context is "no, I don't believe you" - what we're actually saying is "I do not believe god is real". But let's look at how we get into that situation in the first place.

When you are presented with a claim - for instance: "god exists" - you have two options. You either believe that claim or you don't believe that claim. And I'll repeat myself here - unless you can establish that there is sufficient evidence for the claim, you don't believe it. If you establish that there is sufficient evidence, then you, of course, believe it.

But if, after having established that there's not actually any demonstrable evidence for the claim, you still believe the claim (maybe because it appeals to you somehow, whatever the reason) - then you're taking it on faith. But it doesn't take faith to accept a claim when there is sufficient evidence or to reject it if there is no evidence.

Atheist don't do that - when you say atheists have faith, you are implying that we have established that there is evidence for god, but we reject it anyway just because we don't like it . That would be faith. Am I any closer to explaining this?

EDIT: and let me add this, as I can see a possible rebuttal. It's important to note, if I haven't made it clear already, that the "god exists" claim must necessarily have come first - that's why we're deciding on that claim, not on the basis of "god doesn't exist". This is important, because the second claim depends on the first one, but the first one does not depend on the second one.

 

[DarkSun]

Rejecting a positive statement is claiming that it is false. I agree that it is a statement, what I meant was, the statement does not make sense by itself - in contrast, saying "god exists" is a completely independent statement. It is practically impossible to demonstrate that something absolutely doesn't exists or has existed, anywhere, at any time, but it is much easier to demonstrate that something does exist. So anybody claiming that "god does not exist" is likely not claiming to have looked under every stone and behind every tree in the universe and found no sign of god - rather, he/she is claiming that he will not except the premise that god does exist, until someone can demonstrate it.

Yes, if you structure it as something like "God does not exist" it is actually a positive claim (a claim about reality), but by structure alone, what it really means in context is "no, I don't believe you" - what we're actually saying is "I do not believe god is real". But let's look at how we get into that situation in the first place.

When you are presented with a claim - for instance: "god exists" - you have two options. You either believe that claim or you don't believe that claim. And I'll repeat myself here - unless you can establish that there is sufficient evidence for the claim, you don't believe it. If you establish that there is sufficient evidence, then you, of course, believe it.

But if, after having established that there's not actually any demonstrable evidence for the claim, you still believe the claim (maybe because it appeals to you somehow, whatever the reason) - then you're taking it on faith. But it doesn't take faith to accept a claim when there is sufficient evidence or to reject it if there is no evidence.

Atheist don't do that - when you say atheists have faith, you are implying that we have established that there is evidence for god, but we reject it anyway just because we don't like it . That would be faith. Am I any closer to explaining this?

EDIT: and let me add this, as I can see a possible rebuttal. It's important to note, if I haven't made it clear already, that the "god exists" claim must necessarily have come first - that's why we're deciding on that claim, not on the basis of "god doesn't exist". This is important, because the second claim depends on the first one, but the first one does not depend on the second one.

Okay. Thank you for taking the time to explain that. Just a few things that are a bit unclear, if you don't mind.

Firstly, how does a lack of evidence for the alternative viewpoint equate to evidence against the alternative viewpoint? I'm confused there, especially since the same line of reasoning could be used both ways.

Secondly, why does it matter that the statement "God doesn't exist" is made in response to "God exists"? Surely whether or not one statement is made in response to another shouldn't have an impact on the fact that you are making a claim about reality, without evidence for or against.

And finally, I thought faith was believing something without proof, not believing something despite the proof. In that sense, and in that sense alone, wouldn't atheists be doing exactly the same thing as theists do, and believing that God doesn't exist without any evidence?

On that note, yes, I think I might understand where you're coming from. Thank you again for taking the time. But I don't really agree with you. I'm more inclined to say that theists are very similar to atheists, not because they believe the same things, but in that both are looking at the world from their own point of view. Everyone does that, wouldn't you agree?

 

[dogsgod]

Boys and girls, today's word is obtuse. Can you say "obtuse?"

 

[Commoner]

Okay. Thank you for taking the time to explain that. Just a few things that are a bit unclear, if you don't mind.

Firstly, how does a lack of evidence for the alternative viewpoint equate to evidence against the alternative viewpoint? I'm confused there, especially since the same line of reasoning could be used both ways.

Secondly, why does it matter that the statement "God doesn't exist" is made in response to "God exists"? Surely whether or not one statement is made in response to another shouldn't have an impact on the fact that you are making a claim about reality, without evidence for or against.

And finally, I thought faith was believing something without proof, not believing something despite the proof. In that sense, and in that sense alone, wouldn't atheists be doing exactly the same thing as theists do, and believing that God doesn't exist without any evidence?

On that note, yes, I think I might understand where you're coming from. Thank you again for taking the time. But I don't really agree with you. I'm more inclined to say that theists are very similar to atheists, not because they believe the same things, but in that both are looking at the world from their own point of view. Everyone does that, wouldn't you agree?

I really don't have the energy for another lenghty response right now, so let me ask you a question for now and I'll get to these points later.

Given what you've said, do you think that, since I have no evidence either way, I am perfectly resonable in saying that you are an intelligent humanoid* Snickers bar? Is @dogsgod equally (un)resonable if he responded saying that you are not an intelligent humanoid Snickers bar? Why?

*humanoid, so that you have hands with which to write your responses.

And let me give you a more sinister example, so you won't find it so easy to remain liberal.

I have no evidence for or against this, but I am convinced that I am about to develop an infection in my little pinky* that will eventually cost me my life, unless I cut it off today (before the signs of intection could be detected). Should I act in accordance with this belief? Am I being resonable? Would it be only equally (un)resonable not to cut my pinky off? Why?

*can be replaced with "unpure" parts of a penis if you wanted to make the example a bit more religious.

 

[themadhair]

Inductive reasoning is the only form of justification through which people may believe or disbelieve in God. There is no deductive reasoning involved in either viewpoint whatsoever.

I repeat myself since you completely ignored it with added emphasis on the bit you deliberately igonred – “I note how you stopped at the inductive reasoning just before you equivocate the two scenarios as being, in your words, ‘equally justified’. Interesting that.”

Please elaborate.

A red herring is an argument that does not follow, support or have relevance to the conclusion that argument is being used for. Rather than actually responding to the problems being highlighted you have been presenting argumentation that doesn’t address those problems. The post I quoted here noted that you appeared to have stopped that. It was, unfortunately, only a temporary thing.

It is not my fault that the concepts of faith and belief apply universally.

But it is your fault that you are using this a basis for performing a fallacy of equivocation. Ffs, you are admitting that the concept, as you are using it, applies universally and thus, according to your own logic, can be used to argue any two concepts are equally justified. Please tell me you see the problem here????

You're right, I don't believe in pink fairies. But at least I can admit that I have no proof of the inexistence of pink fairies.

Way to miss the point.
Do you regard the existence of pink fairies, as a proposition, to be equally justified with the proposition of their non-existence?
Please try not to miss the point this time and answer the above question.

Inductive reasoning is not a substitute for deductive reasoning.

Who said it was?

Also, people could use their experiences which have led them to believe in God as a means of justification in the same way as what you're describing.

You really do love to draw comparisons between different things don’t you? The FACT that people having similar experiences and reach vastly different conclusions in terms of what ideology those experiences support is a pretty good argument against their reasoning. Whereas the consistent non-observation of fairies supports only one unambiguous conclusion. When you make comparisons like this it only takes a brief bit of analysis to see where it breaks down, and usually ends up arguing against your proposition.

I could state that reindeer don't exist and be proven right or wrong depending on the evidence. I could similarly do the same thing with unicorns, and upon finding no evidence, would have to make up my own mind. This isn't a fallacy at all, it's a fact.

That isn’t what I said. You are arguing that in the absence of disproof, through the disingenuous use of a universally applicable concept (i.e. faith), any two concepts are equally justified. This is the heart of your argument, and you are skirting around it’s implication.

Consider this example which you pretty much ignored:
1) You have no proof that your computer won’t explode the next time you post here.
2) Since you require faith to believe your computer will not explode it is equally justified to believe that your computer will explode.
3) Assuming you are rational, you would not commit and act that has a 50% chance of you getting seriously injured/

But you will continue posting because you do not consider both propositions of explosion/non-explosion to be equally justified. Yet this is using the same logic you are presenting us with. Rather than ignoring this like you have done repeatedly now, can you try to understand why my example is logically flawed and how those same flaws in logic are present in your argument?

It's not clear at all. You're just in denial. Sorry, but it's true.

Care to tackle the above example? If you cannot dismantle the above example, which uses the same logic you are using, then you have a problem.

 

[Tiapan]

How can there be a response to the Anti - Anything when the anything does not exist.
Its total nonsense.

Cheers

PS Be comforted by your delusions and perceptions, they are all you have got.

 

[themadhair]

I would contend that scrutiny and attacking the worth of the individual holding the belief/idea are two different things.

I agree. I’m attacking the idea not the holder of that idea, and I resent the implication you are making here that I am doing otherwise.

I would also contend that scrutiny when not desired by the other party is merely begging for unnecessary conflict.

Frankly, I don’t care since no one has to continue debating in this thread, and I reject outright the notion that any idea should be beyond scrutiny.

Most people don't actually believe what they profess to believe.

I know.

Erm... well its either that or your reading skills?

Reading it again I still get that same implication. I don’t think it was your intent, but it is how it reads.

What else do we have to work with?

Well we could take ideas and analyse them in pretty much the same way hs been done in this thread…..

I think there is a distinction between welcome and unwelcome scrutiny.

This is a thread on an internet that was directed to the anti-religious. I participated in this thread after someone made comments that I thought needed a response. Given the context I simply don’t care if such scrutiny is unwelcome for some.

I do, however, think that an attitude of "you disrespected me first so now I don't have to respect you" is unproductive at best.

As a random, but somewhat related aside, I generally don’t dish out criticism in real life unless I am criticised first. Never been one to sit back and take certain comments. If someone wants to brand me as an “immoral scrum” (which actually happened a few days ago after I responded ‘blessed be’ to a ‘may god be with you’) then they are asking for some serious criticism.
To reiterate a point I made earlier – disrespecting an idea isn’t the same as disrespecting a person.

Deep down we are all afraid of the "dark."
…
If deep down you are not afraid, then I would look at you as one of three things: ignorant (don't realize just how unknown things are), hubristic (falsely attribute greater knowledge to yourself and to a lesser extent humanity than we actually have), or are unable to relate to the human condition (sociopath, brain damage, etc).

It has been my experience that when people acknowledged that such a ‘dark’ exists they tended to be relieved of their fear. Trying to ignore it or rationalise it away seems counterproductive. The first step to coping with something is to accept that something exists.
And I have to completely disagree with your reasons by paraphrasing an idea from Epicurus – why should I fear something when I cannot concoct a reason to be afraid?

We all have our coping mechanisms, and robbing us of them without benefit in return hardly seems fair or moral.

This is a concept that makes no sense to me because you ignore the factor that matter most to me – namely intellectual honesty.

But I think you need to re-examine just how much "faith" you place in science.
…
If one is to be critical of propositions that are disagreed with, then in order to not be a hypocrite one must be equally critical of propositions that are agreed with.

I’ll answer the above by posing the following questions:
1) What makes you think I don’t re-evaluate what I have accepted on a regular basis?
2) What does any of this have to do with the idea being examined?
3) Why are so many folks so insistent on bringing this up in discussions such as these given the answer to number 2?

My point here is not to undermine the value of critical thinking and judgment, but rather to challenge you to empathize with "those people."

Unfortunately you really only succeed in attempting the former here. You also neglect, or are unaware of, that I used to be one of “those people”.

There is a difference between debate and shouting at someone until they relent too...

This is forum so….???

Work within the confines of their world-view if you wish to challenge them.

Absolutely not. An idea that is catastrophically flawed deserves to be called out rather than worked within. It is also unreasonable to grant dodgy premises in this way when, and this is based upon years of experience, you will not get the same in return.

There is also another problem here with this approach which is much more subtle. I’m an active critic regarding Scientology and, for the last 18 months, I’ve been reading and studying their materials. It has gotten to the point where I can think in Scientology terms and concepts. One former member though I was an ex because I could speak fluent Scientologese. The relevance of this is that, within the confines of the Scientology world view, there simply is not any possibility for challenge. When thinking in Scientology terms problems just disappear. From what I remember of my Christianity the situation wasn’t much different.

In summary, by granting the premises of a world view you sometimes lose the basis for your challenges in a very subtle way.

Do you value honesty or "my premises are better than yours?"

And what are my premises? This would seem to be a relevant point, and you would need to point out where such are rendering my criticisms invalid.

I’ve snipped the science rant due it being irrelevant as you probably already know. Start a thread if you want to go down that road.

Are you really prepared to claim that you have no irrational beliefs or meaningful symbols in your life which help keep you going?

This doesn’t really follow from the topic, and has no bearing on the truth values of the topics being discussed. I’m rather curious why you think this line of reasoning is relevant. If my reasoning is flawed point out where.

Critique without advice on what to replace an idea with is amoral at best.

I. Care. About. Whether. An. Idea. Is. True. Or. Not.

But also do not forget the human element. It is very easy to rationalize ideologies to the point that we forget that we are dealing with humans rather than walking computers.

I know some folks (I’m looking at PureX) have accused me of insulting them, but I have not done so. I attacked the idea and only the idea.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I've read themadhair's responses to PureX and they did not seem insulting to me. I think it was legitimate criticism which PureX took as insulting, and replied with his rants of "adolescent atheists" and all that other good stuff.