People who believe in god are broken

[Iggy]

That's right.

 

My point is that religious claims are of the same general kind as those made by psychics, UFO abductees, astrologers, etc. Supernatural religious claims are similar to the claims of pseudoscience because they are both unfalsifiable. Not only is that an essential reason they are similar, it is the most important and the least refutable reason they are different from scientific claims.

To elaborate where I was coming from, there are many perfectly rational beliefs that are not scientific claims and that are not falsifiable.

 

(Tangential, but I'm not as enthusiastic about naive falsificationism as I was when first reading Popper. For elaboration I would mention that I think Susan Haack has some interesting things to say in this lecture:

)

 

As an example, the consensus among scholars that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed is a reasonable view that is not "scientific." Similarly, believing that Mohammed actually existed is perfectly rational, while believing that he flew on a magic donkey is not, and the reasons for this distinction are not mere falsifiability. While it's an important aspect of scientific methodology, and knowledge in general, to insist that falsifiability is what makes beliefs rational or irrational may warrant the scientism epithet.

I said *supernatural* religious claims to avoid the response you just gave. "Jesus existed" is not a supernatural claim.

 

I did *not* say that falsifiability is the only distinction. I did *not* say that falsifiability is what makes beliefs rational or irrational.

 

We are off topic.

[Villain]

 

I put forth a proposition and asked whether people agree or disagree, and to discuss why. You continue to argue against misrepresentations of what actually happened here... i.e. you continue to argue against strawmen.

 

Perhaps even funnier is how you've decided to try to play some ludicrous game of "gotcha" instead of addressing any of the direct criticisms of your position... aka evading and obfuscating.

 

Finally, if I did argue that people who believe in god are broken, I have evidence and logic to support the position. It is not based on faith.

 

If you were interested in coming to a clear consensus on whether religious people were broken or not you wouldn't have named the topic as you did. There is no "gotcha" being used, it is quite clear to anyone that 'we' are biased in this discussion and that the truth of the matter is of little importance, but what is important is driving the thread in the direction that 'we' wants it to go.

 

Anyone who is not part of the Dog squad can clearly see what I have stated.

[iNow]

Would you like to bother now addressing the criticisms of your affirmative belief position in a way that does not rely on fallacious logic, inadequate evidence, or broken reasoning?

 

I suspect you are unable, unwilling, or a combination of both. I would enjoy seeing you prove me wrong.

[A Tripolation]

This thread moves faster than anything else I've seen posted in a while.

 

Are they using broken reasoning? Yes, I think we've established that.

 

No, you established that. I do not consider my reasoning to be broken, else I would no longer hold such beliefs.

 

Are they using broken logic? Yes, I think we've established the flaws in their unfounded premises.

 

Erm, no. Many theists look to God to provide a mechanism for unanswerable questions. IE - Where did the energy from time epsilon of the big bang come from? Why is everything the way it is? Why do such inexplicable things occur? This is not on par with leprechauns and unicorns. The concepts are far more deep than your average ficticious animal.

 

Are they breaking the consistency with which they approach the world? Yes, they are applying double standards and being hypocritical.

 

This "consistency" is not so consistent as you would claim.

 

In every reaction and sequence, there are “onesies”, events that will never, ever happen again. Do we then say that those events never existed if we were not there to observe them? If we cannot infer them? If we cannot extrapolate them? What if they are essential to our understanding? What if we are missing some intrinsic puzzle piece, lost to us forever?

 

It reminds me of the quote by Lawrence Krauss:

In 5 billion years, the expansion of the universe will have progressed to the point where all other galaxies will have receded beyond detection. Indeed, they will be receding faster than the speed of light, so detection will be impossible. Future civilizations will discover science and all its laws, and never know about other galaxies or the cosmic background radiation. They will inevitably come to the wrong conclusion about the universe......We live in a special time, the only time, where we can observationally verify that we live in a special time.

 

Yes. We have such a great claim to absolute truth and knowledge, clearly.

 

Am I claiming that people who do not believe in god are not broken? No.

Am I claiming that believers are broken entirely... everywhere... and in everything they do? No, and nobody else has claimed that, either.

 

You've certainly implied it in this thread. Calling our cherished beliefs "childish" and mocking our thought process. Even if we are wrong...so what? Who gives a fuck? Why the need to eradicate religion? Am I hurting you in any way?

 

However, in this context, it's really not a big stretch nor is it an "incredible jump in logic" to summarize the position as "people who believe in god are broken," especially since we've allowed the term broken to mean different things to different readers.

 

Then to me, broken means being unable to accept that the universe isn't a result of mere happenstance. Ergo, you seem quite broken to me.

[iNow]

I do not consider my reasoning to be broken, else I would no longer hold such beliefs.

I wouldn't be so sure about this. Your belief comprises a large portion of your self-image, the way you define yourself, and it is incredibly difficult to abandon, even when reason and honesty dictate that you truly should. I don't fault you for this. I know it's hard, but you are lying to yourself somewhere deep inside and I suspect you know it.

 

Erm, no. Many theists look to God to provide a mechanism for unanswerable questions. IE - Where did the energy from time epsilon of the big bang come from? Why is everything the way it is? Why do such inexplicable things occur?

Why not Zeus, then? Why not Apollo, or Vishnu, or even Allah? Again, you seem to request special deference for YOUR preferred version of deity while willingly joining me in abandoning all of the others held by people on the planet now and in times past as both silly and/or baseless. Unlike you, I'm not willing to operate on such an obvious double standard, and I propose that people who are willing to operate on such a double standard are broken. The only argument you've managed to muster in defense of your position is basically, "I believe this extraordinary claim is true despite the lack of adequate evidence solely because I want to, so there." You can claim your affirmative belief is not broken, but it appears very differently to people who do not share your same delusion.

 

This is not on par with leprechauns and unicorns. The concepts are far more deep than your average ficticious animal.

They are still, however, almost certainly fictions. It does not matter how profound the fiction is, nor how deep or emotionally salient or important they are to the person believing them. It's not the storylines emotional valence that matters here... Only that it is a fiction being seriously treated as nonfiction by members of the population such as yourself.

 

I know you struggle to concede this simple point, but it remains valid all the same. The concept of god is not functionally different as pertains to either validity or truth than the concept of santa claus or any of the other childhood myths we all rightfully reject as we mature.

 

This "consistency" is not so consistent as you would claim.

Is this supposed to be an argument that we should not all seek to increase and improve the consistency of our logic and reasoning? Are you suggesting that because we are not always consistent with our logic that it's okay to use double standards when it comes to belief in god(s)? It definitely appears that you are, and I find this to be a ridiculous and untenable position you've just presented.

 

Yes. We have such a great claim to absolute truth and knowledge, clearly.

This sort of misses the point. Not knowing is okay. Claiming to know something you do not know is not. Scientific claims are generally made with uncertainty embedded, as well as a complete willingness to abandon the claim if evidence suggests it to be false. We don't see that with belief in god(s), and nobody here except the theists are claiming to know anything with certainty nor based on faith alone.

 

Calling our cherished beliefs "childish" and mocking our thought process.

I would do the same if you claimed you were Napolean, or if you claimed you had been butt probed by aliens, or if you claimed that the tooth fairy visited you last night. As I've tried to make clear throughout the thread... Just because so many people believe in god(s), or just because those beliefs are important to them does not mean they are any more worthy of respect or immune from criticism, castigation, and direct challenge. If your beliefs are anything more than childish myths and delusions, then you should be able to rebut any challenge put to you. Instead, however, theists consistently evade the burden of proof, seek shelter from scrutiny, and demand a respect they simply have failed to earn.

 

Even if we are wrong...so what? Who gives a fuck? Why the need to eradicate religion? Am I hurting you in any way?

I shared earlier how this type of thinking impacts the society we all share, and I've also clarified that my goal is not to eradicate religion, but to eradicate ignorance in all its forms. It just so happens that religion and the affirmative belief in extraordinary god(s) in the face of inadequate evidence and resulting from flawed reasoning and wish thinking alone is one of the most profound and visible sources of ignorance in modern times.

Edited May 27, 2012 by iNow

[Iggy]

Erm, no. Many theists look to God to provide a mechanism for unanswerable questions. IE - Where did the energy from time epsilon of the big bang come from? Why is everything the way it is? Why do such inexplicable things occur?

I'm curious...

 

A scientifically unanswerable question today can be scientifically answerable tomorrow... which is to say, two millennia ago "how old is the world?" was unanswerable in just the same way as "what accounts for the energy of the big bang?" is unanswerable today.

 

Historically then, how good do you think theism is at filling in our shrinking margins of knowledge? Do you think "looking to God to provide a mechanism for unanswerable questions" has been an effective method?

 

I think theistic methods like divine revelation have proven to be about as broken as methods get, but I'm curious how you would characterize them.

[tar]

Inow,

 

If you had a thought, that seemed rational and consistent, that fit nicely with all your other thoughts, that glued them all together, and someone were to show you good solid evidence that that thought was bogus, you would be in a tight spot. Your need for consistency and intellectual honesty would force you to either ignore the evidence and break your pact with yourself, or accept the evidence and become unglued.

 

I think it very unfair of you to suggest to A Tripolation that he is deep down, lying to himself. Sort of unlike you. And not appropriate for the civil exchange of ideas, and seaching for truth, that you normally safeguard.

 

I have been on threads with A Tripolation before, and I am quite sure that "getting at the truth" is one of his objectives as well.

 

Seems better to me to attempt to understand the glue that holds another's thoughts together, than to imagine your's is the only glue that sticks.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited May 28, 2012 by tar

[zapatos]

I think it very unfair of you to suggest to A Tripolation that he is deep down, lying to himself. Sort of unlike you. And not appropriate for the civil exchange of ideas, and seaching for truth, that you normally safeguard.

I'd have to agree. Unless they are closer than it appears from postings on this site, it is not possible for iNow to understand even 1% of what makes A Trip what he is and how he thinks. To think that he can understand what A Trip is thinking "deep down" seems to me to be hubris.

 

I've never had a strong belief in God so I have no understanding of what it is like to have that belief. I therefore don't feel I am in any position to judge those who do have a strong belief. I remember many occassions my dad telling me that I "don't get it" about one subject or another, and that I wouldn't "get it" until I was older, married, had kids, whatever. Big surprise, he was quite right. What I learned from that was to be careful about judging others when I posessed less than perfect knowledge.

 

Even though parts of QM seem ridiculous to me I am careful when I question it, because I know that I don't get it like others do. Similarly, I feel quite comfortable questioning someone about belief to some extent because of my background, but I know I don't get what it means to believe like they get it. It may turn out that believers are completely wrong, but without really understanding how they view belief, and how they reached that conclusion, I feel it would be reckless of me to suggest that they are broken, lying, or really, much of anything else.

Edited May 28, 2012 by zapatos

[tar]

Consider this addendum to my last post.

 

 

I've been reading Maarten Boudry's essays recently. Good stuff.

 

How not to attack Intelligent Design Creationism: Philosophical misconceptions about Methodological Naturalism

 

(See more papers in "Writings" section of nav.)

 

the asinine cretin,

 

Read the Maarten Boudry piece. Seems a thourough argument against supernatural things being approachable by science.

But the definition of supernatural excludes supernatural things from nature in the first place (as is pointed out in the essay.)

Which leads me to the interesting thought, in reference to this thread, that if God is a proxy for nature, as I have been arguing, and scientists will accept only natural explanations, then ANYBODY not believing in nature, as having both the first and last word, would indeed be broken. But since both scientists and religious people have nothing but complete faith in nature, then EVERYBODY who believes in nature, is not broken.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited May 28, 2012 by tar

[the asinine cretin]

I said *supernatural* religious claims to avoid the response you just gave. "Jesus existed" is not a supernatural claim.

That actually doesn't matter at all to what I was saying. You've clearly not understood me.

 

I did *not* say that falsifiability is the only distinction. I did *not* say that falsifiability is what makes beliefs rational or irrational.

I didn't mean to say that such is your view and I'm glad to hear that it isn't. In my mind you've had the benefit of the doubt. No need to be defensive.

 

We are off topic.

I don't agree. But fine.

 

Shall I actually take the time to further clarify where I'm coming from or will you just reply with a series of pithy complaints and then declare the conversion void?

 

 

the asinine cretin,

 

Read the Maarten Boudry piece. Seems a thourough argument against supernatural things being approachable by science.

But the definition of supernatural excludes supernatural things from nature in the first place (as is pointed out in the essay.)

Which leads me to the interesting thought, in reference to this thread, that if God is a proxy for nature, as I have been arguing, and scientists will accept only natural explanations, then ANYBODY not believing in nature, as having both the first and last word, would indeed be broken. But since both scientists and religious people have nothing but complete faith in nature, then EVERYBODY who believes in nature, is not broken.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

I don't know how you got that reading exactly. The reason I posted it is that it elucidates a view I share on the subject of intrinsic methodological naturalism.

 

Consider the first paragraph of the conclusion.

 

"In this paper, we reviewed five arguments in favour of the conception of MN [methodological naturalism] as an intrinsic property of science (IMN), and we found them all wanting: the argument from the definition of science, the argument from lawful regularity, the science stopper argument, the argument from procedural necessity, and the testability argument. Instead, we defended MN as a provisory and empirically grounded commitment of scientists to naturalistic causes and explanations, which is in principle revocable by overwhelming and unmistakable empirical evidence (PMN). Evolutionary scientists are on firmer ground if they discard supernatural explanations on purely evidential grounds, and not by philosophical fiat."

 

 

Rather than glean favorite quotes I'd just suggest rereading it. It is not an "argument against supernatural things being approachable by science." It's more interesting than that, in my opinion.

 

Regards, sir.

Edited May 28, 2012 by the asinine cretin

[iNow]

If you had a thought, that seemed rational and consistent, that fit nicely with all your other thoughts, that glued them all together, and someone were to show you good solid evidence that that thought was bogus, you would be in a tight spot. Your need for consistency and intellectual honesty would force you to either ignore the evidence and break your pact with yourself, or accept the evidence and become unglued.

I don't disagree. The beauty about becoming unglued and falling down into a million pieces is that it allows you to pick yourself up and put yourself together. Recognizing that you can do this brings tremendous strength and integrity.

[tar]

I'd have to agree. Unless they are closer than it appears from postings on this site, it is not possible for iNow to understand even 1% of what makes A Trip what he is and how he thinks. To think that he can understand what A Trip is thinking "deep down" seems to me to be hubris.

 

I've never had a strong belief in God so I have no understanding of what it is like to have that belief. I therefore don't feel I am in any position to judge those who do have a strong belief. I remember many occassions my dad telling me that I "don't get it" about one subject or another, and that I wouldn't "get it" until I was older, married, had kids, whatever. Big surprise, he was quite right. What I learned from that was to be careful about judging others when I posessed less than perfect knowledge.

 

Even though parts of QM seem ridiculous to me I am careful when I question it, because I know that I don't get it like others do. Similarly, I feel quite comfortable questioning someone about belief to some extent because of my background, but I know I don't get what it means to believe like they get it. It may turn out that believers are completely wrong, but without really understanding how they view belief, and how they reached that conclusion, I feel it would be reckless of me to suggest that they are broken, lying, or really, much of anything else.

 

Zapatos,

 

I agree certainly with the thought that it usually turns out that people who appear wrong to you, usually are not so wrong as you think. But there is probably also a correlary that would suggest that people that appear right to you, usually are not so right as you think.

 

But both these things, probably being the case, it might be wise to say, the heck with objective truth, I'll just go with my best guess.

 

When I read the Koran twice. Once for the jist and once for comprehension. It was after 9/11, which gave me quite a chip on my shoulder. I saw on 9/11 there was evil in the world, and I wanted to understand my enemy. What the heck had I done, that made me the great Satan, in anyone's eyes? I think I figured it out, and understand a lot of the shortcomings of both the groups I associate myself with, and the groups that I do not associate myself with. But I tend to think I am OK regardless of my issues, and my enemies simply have issues. But the point is, that I could read the Koran and know Mohammed's thoughts. What he was taking from the Bible, and what he was enhancing. When he was speaking as a messenger of ALLAH (truth) and when he was associating himself with Allah to validate his own power.

 

You say that Inow can not know 1% of A Tripolations thoughts, and you may be right. But I think Inow CAN know, or have a good guess, based on those thoughts that A Tripolation expressed here, and other threads that Inow has read. And Inow would not have suggested to A Tripolation that he might be deep down lying to himself, if Inow didn't think that was a real possibility.

 

Is it possible for me to evaluate Mohammed's deepest thoughts, and determine as well where he has given nature attributes nature does not have, and also tell where he has usurped the power of nature for himself?

 

Yes I can. Because I know nature, and he/she/it is no Allah. That was Mohammed talking. Sometime talking sincerely about nature, and sometime making shit up.

 

Regards, TAR2

[zapatos]

Zapatos,

...

You say that Inow can not know 1% of A Tripolations thoughts, and you may be right. But I think Inow CAN know, or have a good guess, based on those thoughts that A Tripolation expressed here, and other threads that Inow has read. And Inow would not have suggested to A Tripolation that he might be deep down lying to himself, if Inow didn't think that was a real possibility.

 

Is it possible for me to evaluate Mohammed's deepest thoughts, and determine as well where he has given nature attributes nature does not have, and also tell where he has usurped the power of nature for himself?

 

Yes I can. Because I know nature, and he/she/it is no Allah. That was Mohammed talking. Sometime talking sincerely about nature, and sometime making shit up.

 

Regards, TAR2

Well then, you have proven my point that I often just "don't get it". For example, when you said...

"I think it very unfair of you to suggest to A Tripolation that he is deep down, lying to himself.

...I toook that to mean that you felt iNow was not able to make that judgement about A Trip. I mean, if iNow knew or could make a good guess A Trip was lying to himself, then certainly it wouldn't be unfair of iNow to say so.

 

But I obviously got that wrong since you now say...

Inow CAN know, or have a good guess, based on those thoughts that A Tripolation expressed here, and other threads that Inow has read.

Since I now question myself regarding my observation about iNow...

 

iNow,

 

If you do indeed 'know' or 'have a good guess' about that aspect of A Trip then I retract my statement about you with apologies.

 

I'll try harder in the future to stick to observations about myself.

 

-zapatos

[Iggy]

Shall I actually take the time to further clarify where I'm coming from...

Elaborate as you feel need be, sir.

 

edit:

 

I apologize if I seemed dismissive. I thought you were trying to disagree with me and I didn't want to drift off topic after recent complaints about the expanding scope ofthe thread.

Edited May 28, 2012 by Iggy

[Villain]

Would you like to bother now addressing the criticisms of your affirmative belief position in a way that does not rely on fallacious logic, inadequate evidence, or broken reasoning?

 

I suspect you are unable, unwilling, or a combination of both. I would enjoy seeing you prove me wrong.

 

No one can prove the all knowing wrong, that is why I stopped contributing to this thread.

[tar]

 

 

I don't know how you got that reading exactly. The reason I posted it is that it elucidates a view I share on the subject of intrinsic methodological naturalism.

 

Consider the first paragraph of the conclusion.

 

"In this paper, we reviewed five arguments in favour of the conception of MN [methodological naturalism] as an intrinsic property of science (IMN), and we found them all wanting: the argument from the definition of science, the argument from lawful regularity, the science stopper argument, the argument from procedural necessity, and the testability argument. Instead, we defended MN as a provisory and empirically grounded commitment of scientists to naturalistic causes and explanations, which is in principle revocable by overwhelming and unmistakable empirical evidence (PMN). Evolutionary scientists are on firmer ground if they discard supernatural explanations on purely evidential grounds, and not by philosophical fiat."

 

 

Rather than glean favorite quotes I'd just suggest rereading it. It is not an "argument against supernatural things being approachable by science." It's more interesting than that, in my opinion.

 

Regards, sir.

 

the asinine cretin,

 

I did think the essay was "more interesting than that". But I have already determined that there is nothing that is supernatural, and there is a natural explanation for everything. I was just proposing the next step. As in " if there is nothing supernatural, and everything has a natural explanation, then TAR2 already knows truth, as soon as he opens his eyes and lets it in." A scientist would do this, a religious person would do this. If we posit nature as both our source and our goal, we have to be right, because there is no "other" to come from, no "other" to be and no "other" to explore and no "other" to recognize, and no "other" to become when we die.

 

And I thought it was interesting that the general human discourse on the nature of god, and the inappropriateness of faith in the supernatural as depicted in the essay and as expressed in the many "sides" that have been expressed in this thread, are roughly the same discourse I have with myself, all the time.

 

Sort of funny. We can wait till we find the natural explanation through the scientific method, or just accept that the universe is wonderful and terrible on faith or intuition and wind up in the same place, either way.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

After all, its not like scientific method, could ever discover anything that isn't true.

 

or that nature could ever do anything that was not natural.

Or that God could ever do anything other than that which is consistent with reality.

[tar]

Well then, you have proven my point that I often just "don't get it". For example, when you said...

 

...I toook that to mean that you felt iNow was not able to make that judgement about A Trip. I mean, if iNow knew or could make a good guess A Trip was lying to himself, then certainly it wouldn't be unfair of iNow to say so.

 

But I obviously got that wrong since you now say...

 

Since I now question myself regarding my observation about iNow...

 

iNow,

 

If you do indeed 'know' or 'have a good guess' about that aspect of A Trip then I retract my statement about you with apologies.

 

I'll try harder in the future to stick to observations about myself.

 

-zapatos

 

Zapatos,

 

No, you did not take me wrong. I meant what I said in the manner you took it.

Inow in general, would not allow me to know, have knowledge of, another persons thoughts. I thought it unfair, that in light of this, he would claim knowledge of A Tripolation's, thoughts.

My flip, in defense of Inow, was a confirmation of the possibility that we perhaps ARE able to know things we do not know about other people...and by extension nature itself.

 

And I took this a little farther in addressing the essay Mr. Cretin linked. That perhaps we all know nature quite intimately, in that it is the only thing TO know. And took this even further to mean that we can know nature, and know when somebody else, is going against it. When somebody else is "getting it wrong". And we can make this determination about others, and often do.

 

That in some ways even subjective views are already objective on some levels, and are true, to the extent that they are true. And that objective views have to be subjective views, by definition, in that they are singular human views, even when thought to be also the view of nature itself

 

What that says about the thread question, I have no clue. Seems to argue in several directions at once. Probably why I sit on the fence. I don't really think we have it figured out completely yet. Not to my satisfaction, at least.

 

People that believe in God are broken? Maybe. Maybe not.

 

Regards, TAR2

[iNow]

I truly cannot express the magnitude of my shock and surprise that you would respond to this request:

 

Would you like to bother now addressing the criticisms of your affirmative belief position in a way that does not rely on fallacious logic, inadequate evidence, or broken reasoning?

By saying this:

 

No one can prove the all knowing wrong, that is why I stopped contributing to this thread.

And that I was correct when I suggested:

 

I suspect you are unable, unwilling, or a combination of both.

 

It really seems scripted, but I promise you dear readers, it was not. This is simply how every argument tends always to play out when someone is asked to support their affirmative belief in god(s). We wouldn't accept this as valid support that the tooth fairy is real, or that santa exists. Why do we sell ourselves so short by accepting this as "sure, good enough for us!" when it comes to the extraordinary claim of god(s)?

[Moontanman]

I have been following and commenting in this thread from the beginning and while there have been a hand full of people involved who no doubt couldn't tell shit from apple butter, very nearly everyone has done a pretty good job of showing how they disagree and agree..

 

It seems to me that it boils down to world view, at least three world views,

 

#1 is that nothing exists that we cannot investigate empirically therefore believing in something that cannot be supported by evidence is broken reasoning.

 

#2 is that God made everything, God is real, it controls everything and we should not question god or how the universe works.

 

#3 between these two extremes are the people who believe at some level or who compartmentalize their beliefs in such a way that the natural and the supernatural are simply separate things.

 

There are different versions of these three ideas, one major one seems to be the god of the gaps idea which seems to be mostly associated with #2

 

The thing that strikes me most is that indeed if most theists didn't insist on making everyone else follow their religious rules and insist on converting everyone or at the very least made some effort to reign in the extreme fringe groups we would not have to consider the idea of being broken.

 

But as it stands, and I really don't like saying this, I think the more moderate believers are the most broken, the ignorant and stupid cannot even conceive of why they might be wrong, they lap up anything their leaders tell them as the truth and actively assert that anyone who doesn't believe the way they do has something wrong with them. I think they truly don't have the capacity to even think of an alternate solution. The moderates can and do know better.

 

The more moderate types while understanding their lack of real world evidence continue to believe anyway and while this group is the largest group their tolerance to the fringes is scary. The moderates don't seem to see the danger of what religion is and what it does when not chained by secular law and these moderates can't see any reason not to support the political right which has embraced the extreme fringes. This is very scary and should be seen that way by anyone who believes that intellectual freedom and individual rights are important.

 

To me all this indicates that the moderates are the most broken, being intellectually able to understand what is going on but still not only believing but supporting those who would take everyone's rights away in favor of how they interpret the writings of bronze age savages.

 

It happened in NC a few weeks ago, the fundamentalists have passed laws in most states of the US that take away the rights of individuals for no reason other than religious belief, it's terrifying....

Edited May 28, 2012 by Moontanman

[the asinine cretin]

Elaborate as you feel need be, sir.

 

edit:

 

I apologize if I seemed dismissive. I thought you were trying to disagree with me and I didn't want to drift off topic after recent complaints about the expanding scope ofthe thread.

 

No problem at all. I apologize for hasty posts and lack of clarity. I'm thinking of stepping out for a while as there are about 20 pages in this thread that I've not read and the things I'd like to say, while relevant to the topic, represent a slightly different discussion than that which seems to be taking place at the moment. Cheers!

[John Cuthber]

iNow, I think you may have misunderstood Villain's post

 

 

 

No one can prove the all knowing wrong, that is why I stopped contributing to this thread.

 

I think perhaps he considers himself to be the " all knowing" and, since no one can prove him wrong, he's not bothering to contribute.

 

I grant you it's a bit of a stretch, but it's more plausible than that he really replied to an invitation to explain himself by saying he wasn't going to because he couldn't change our minds.

[Villain]

I truly cannot express the magnitude of my shock and surprise that you would respond to this request:

 

 

By saying this:

 

 

And that I was correct when I suggested:

 

 

 

It really seems scripted, but I promise you dear readers, it was not. This is simply how every argument tends always to play out when someone is asked to support their affirmative belief in god(s). We wouldn't accept this as valid support that the tooth fairy is real, or that santa exists. Why do we sell ourselves so short by accepting this as "sure, good enough for us!" when it comes to the extraordinary claim of god(s)?

 

Do you think your audience are children? They are more than welcome to read what I have already written and explained in this thread. I see no need to repeat myself. Your cheap psychological tricks are not needed here, why don't you remove your condescending tone and act like an adult.

[John Cuthber]

Did it not strike you that it would be nearly as easy, and a lot more effective, to actually cite evidence? At least cite the relevant bits of what you have said among the last 47 pages of posts.

[iNow]

Do you think your audience are children? They are more than welcome to read what I have already written and explained in this thread. I see no need to repeat myself.

If you have put forth adequate evidence of the existence of your personally preferred version of deity, then I certainly missed it. Perhaps you would be so kind as to repeat yourself just this once, or at least tell me which post number I should go read again to correct my oversight?

 

If you do not bother to offer a reasonable response to this reasonable question, I am left only to conclude that you are either unwilling, unable, or some combination of both ... to support your affirmative belief position. I would be left to conclude only that you'd prefer to evade the direct challenge put to you and you have chosen instead to implicitly request special deference or immunity of your personal beliefs from criticism. I'm sure that's not the case, however, and that you'll be sure to put forth a response that allows our collective criticisms to be summarily dismissed.

[tar]

Moontanman,

 

You left out a few "types". For instance immortal who believes that what we learn through empirical evidence is one thing, and the supernatural is another, and we have access to both. And the supernatural connection is more important than the empirical one..

 

And then types like me who believe god is not supernatural, but nature itself, and we can't possibly be anything else, but its creation, and we have no way to remove ourselves from reality nor does reality have anyway to rid itself of us.

 

And you didn't mention anything about people who believe in God as a Ideal to be followed. That exists in ones heart and mind and societal rules and the minds of fellow "believers" in the Ideal, as a "real" thing that guides their behaviour, and sets their goals, and rewards them doing it right, and punishes them for doing it wrong.

 

Regards, TAR2