People who believe in god are broken

[iNow]

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?

I hardly agree with Hitchens in all things, and I do not approach the subject the way I do as a result of him or his speeches or his writings. He does, however, often have an erudite way of expressing that which I feel.

 

You asked why I bother. Take 11 minutes of your day to view this tribute to him that touches on that precise question from multiple angles.

 

 

[Moontanman]

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

 

 

In keeping with the spirit of this thread i have faith that i am correct...

[iNow]

If I won't let them get away with it, I cannot let you get away with it, Moonman. You are conflating "faith" with "confidence" or "a feeling" or some similar. You aren't claiming to know something you do not know, so it is not faith.

[Moontanman]

If I won't let them get away with it, I cannot let you get away with it, Moonman. You are conflating "faith" with "confidence" or "a feeling" or some similar. You aren't claiming to know something you do not know, so it is not faith.

 

 

Busted...

[Villain]

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.

 

I have given more than enough reason as to why people who believe in god are not broken. I have also demonstrated how people who refuse that a god could exist, could never see evidence of an existing god, hence why someone who is not interested in truth will never find truth, but merely find what they want. By naming the thread the they you did, you have demonstrated that you are not interested in finding the truth of the matter but only your truth or perhaps I should call it, we truth, as even though numerous people have made many valid points against your original premise, you still maintain it's rather lacking validity.

[Iggy]

I have also demonstrated how people who refuse that a god could exist, could never see evidence of an existing god, hence why someone who is not interested in truth will never find truth, but merely find what they want.

Could you point out in the thread where someone "refused that god could exist". I've kept up with the thread throughout, but I don't recall that. Without a specific post or quote I'm afraid your last posting will appear entirely misleading.

[Villain]

Could you point out in the thread where someone "refused that god could exist". I've kept up with the thread throughout, but I don't recall that. Without a specific post or quote I'm afraid your last posting will appear entirely misleading.

 

Atheism is an active refusal that god exists, it is a choice from the concious mind.

 

Nothing can be discovered that is not already there and nothing new can be made by man. There is no true intelligence in man, a simple truth that is beyond man's conscious mind and is enough proof that One higher than man exists. The evidence is not a physical evidence but an evidence of knowledge. An evidence so simple but yet so illuminating, accessible to all who are wise enough is listen.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Villain

[Iggy]

Atheism is an active refusal that god exists, it is a choice from the concious mind.

Rather than giving me a post or quote you changed your claim from "refuse that a god could exist" to "refusal that god exists". I assume this means you misspoke earlier and your new claim would be:

 

I have also demonstrated how people who refuse that a god could exist, could never see evidence of an existing god...

In other words, you have to believe in god to see evidence of god. That sounds like religious logic,

 

 

Have you ever considered that the reason religious logic is different from normal logic is because the baseball exists and god doesn't? Maybe you only see evidence of god if you believe because it has something to do with wishful thinking rather than objective reality.

[Villain]

Rather than giving me a post or quote you changed your claim from "refuse that a god could exist" to "refusal that god exists". I assume this means you misspoke earlier and your new claim would be:

 

And how might god exist if god doesn't exist?

 

 

 

[tar]

In keeping with the spirit of this thread i have faith that i am correct...

 

Moontanman,

 

I disagree.

 

#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.

 

Are your three general types.

 

(#3ish)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..

 

(#2 and #1ish)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.

 

(#2ish)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.

 

The difference being your three are framed in the negative third person.

And mine in a more positive second and first person.

 

You can not frame God in a positive first person light because you have already decided you don't need any "other" person but yourself to explain the entire shooting match. And anybody that "doesn't" feel this way is broken.

 

And if this "first person only" view that you seem to hold, is "correct", well then I will be a monkey's uncle.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Iggy]

And how might god exist if god doesn't exist?

By not responding to it I'll take that my paraphrasing was good. You say that one must believe in god to see evidence of god. I'm sorry to keep repeating it but it is amazing to me. "One must believe it to see evidence of it" is the perfect definition of a delusion. You admit that all of the evidence is contingent on belief. Absolutely none of it has objective value.

 

This illustrates a great deal.

 

The answer to the riddle is that god doesn't exist if he doesn't exist. Fun word game

Edited May 29, 2012 by Iggy

[Villain]

The answer to the riddle is that god doesn't exist if he doesn't exist. Fun word game

 

Exactly, to the individual who decides that god doesn't exist, there cannot be evidence even if he does objectively exist because evidence will never be of his existence, only of something that is not him.

[Iggy]

Brilliant. The evidence hides from the skeptics. If you believe really hard then you'll see the evidence. But if you doubt... it will be gone forever.

 

It's like a secret club. I'm a skeptic, but I'd still really like to see the evidence, please. Sorry, Sir, if you don't believe you simply can't see it. The evidence is objective, but you have to have the holy spirit sponsored decoder ring to see it. There's simply nothing we can do about that.

 

I'm not buying it. It sounds like an intricately constructed self reinforcing delusion.

[Villain]

Brilliant. The evidence hides from the skeptics. If you believe really hard then you'll see the evidence. But if you doubt... it will be gone forever.

 

It's like a secret club. I'm a skeptic, but I'd still really like to see the evidence, please. Sorry, Sir, if you don't believe you simply can't see it. The evidence is objective, but you have to have the holy spirit sponsored decoder ring to see it. There's simply nothing we can do about that.

 

I'm not buying it. It sounds like an intricately constructed self reinforcing delusion.

 

If that is what you understood from what I wrote, then who am I to judge you if you wish to deceive yourself? But let it be know that you deceive yourself. We are in the end all responsible to ourselves for our own opinions.

[immortal]

How is asking whether a synthetic posterior statement in metaphysics is possible or not, a form of wishful thinking. All scientific knowledge comes from the senses and all religious knowledge comes with out the senses. Even theists don't accept something as true without seeing. Faith == ignorance, we are not claiming to know something which we don't know.

[iNow]

I have given more than enough reason as to why people who believe in god are not broken.

Where specifically, though? Multiple people here have openly shared with you that they did not see this, or do not recall where. Will you please at least attempt to put forth a helpful response to clarify these confusions, or will you continue to evade, misrepresent people, and obfuscate? Just share your reasons once more, please. It's not hard, nor is it an unreasonable request... so quit acting so unreasonably.

 

 

I have also demonstrated how people who refuse that a god could exist, could never see evidence of an existing god

As I've mentioned previously, you really do seem to love the strawman argument. Iggy has already amply replied to your completely fallacious arguments and claims, but just to reinforce it... Nobody here is refusing that a god "could" exist. Nor is anybody here claiming that they "could never see evidence of an existing god." If you are struggling to clearly understand what we write, then ask questions and request we clarify our stance... Don't continue to make such wrong-headed assumptions and argue against total misrepresentations. It doesn't bode well for your position.

 

...It actually reinforces the threads central proposition.

 

Atheism is an active refusal that god exists, it is a choice from the concious mind.

This is a misunderstanding. For most atheists, it's not an "active refusal that god exists," just the lack of an affirmative belief in god or gods. It may seem subtle, but it's a tremendously important semantic difference.

 

One does not have to actively refuse that god(s) exist to be atheist as you've suggested here. An atheist is literally just someone who is a-theist, or not-theist. It means they lack an affirmative belief in god or gods, and that's all. What you're referring to is one of the less common forms of atheism known as "strong atheism" or "hard atheism," wherein the person actively believes there is NO god. They don't just not believe in god(s), they actually believe there are none.

 

Most of the atheist population, however, simply find no compelling reason to accept as true or valid the proposition that one does. They don't actively believe or refuse to believe there are existent gods, just see no reason to believe that one does. Most of this population would gladly review and accept adequate evidence to the contrary if any were provided. The point, however, is none has been provided despite thousands of years of attempts by believers such as yourself.

 

If I'm wrong, I'm glad to admit it... But you have to first show that. I don't refuse to accept evidence. I don't refuse that a god "could" exist. I just find it highly unlikely given the arguments theists put forth, the incredible lack of adequate evidence to scale with the extraordinary nature of the claim, and hence the idea is just not very compelling... and most certainly not compelling enough to live life as if it were true and valid.

 

Does this help you to better understand my position, and the position of people like me?

 

---

You say that one must believe in god to see evidence of god. I'm sorry to keep repeating it but it is amazing to me. "One must believe it to see evidence of it" is the perfect definition of a delusion. You admit that all of the evidence is contingent on belief. Absolutely none of it has objective value.

 

This illustrates a great deal.

Indeed, it most certainly does.

 

Brilliant. The evidence hides from the skeptics. If you believe really hard then you'll see the evidence. But if you doubt... it will be gone forever.

 

It's like a secret club. I'm a skeptic, but I'd still really like to see the evidence, please. Sorry, Sir, if you don't believe you simply can't see it. The evidence is objective, but you have to have the holy spirit sponsored decoder ring to see it. There's simply nothing we can do about that.

 

I'm not buying it. It sounds like an intricately constructed self reinforcing delusion.

Probably because that's exactly what it is. Nice summary.

Edited May 29, 2012 by iNow

[Appolinaria]

One does not have to actively refuse that god(s) exist to be atheist.

 

Wait, what?

[iNow]

Wait, what?

There is a difference between actively believing that no gods exist and not believing in god(s). I was editing my post above for clarity when you responded. Please read it again, as I may have already addressed your confusion with my updates.

 

We've also covered this topic many times at SFN (atheist just means you lack an affirmative belief in god or gods, not that you actively believe they don't exist).

[Iggy]

If that is what you understood from what I wrote, then who am I to judge you if you wish to deceive yourself? But let it be know that you deceive yourself.

If someone is deceiving yourself....

 

Sorry, that was a slip of the tongue... If someone is deceiving themselves then you should not be a passive observer. You should express debate, disputation, disapproval, dissension, denunciation, and other appropriate words that might start with other letters none of which constitute 'judgment' in the pejorative sense.

 

If you are deceiving yourself then you should expect people to confront you.

 

Everything I said in my last few posts is either a reiteration or a deduction of the thing to which I was responding. Saying that my comments show self deception without showing exactly where and exactly why you make this accusation makes it meaningless. If you aren't intentionally dodging and deflecting from my critique you certainly are mimicking that motive very well.

 

...[i made a few edits for typos and clarity]...

Edited May 29, 2012 by Iggy

[Appolinaria]

 

We've also covered this topic many times at SFN (atheist just means you lack an affirmative belief in god or gods, not that you actively believe they don't exist).

 

INow, I have respect for you and the forum rules and I'm not trying to derail anything, but I don't see how that makes sense.

 

I don't see evidence for 10 legged horses, but I'm NOT going to actively believe they don't exist... so then it comes down to my ability to get evidence, not whether it exists or not, otherwise I would hold the belief that they don't exist. So there is a possibility.

 

Isn't that agnosticism? How in the hell is that atheism?

 

 

Dawkins himself admits he is an agnostic.

 

He has no proof that God doesn't exist which he says is why he is agnostic, not an atheist.

 

If you can't be sure God does not exist and actively believe God doesn't exist, then it's my impression that you are agnostic. I need further clarification.

[Villain]

Where specifically, though? Multiple people here have openly shared with you that they did not see this, or do not recall where. Will you please at least attempt to put forth a helpful response to clarify these confusions, or will you continue to evade, misrepresent people, and obfuscate? Just share your reasons once more, please. It's not hard, nor is it an unreasonable request... so quit acting so unreasonably.

 

I'm not interested in being crowned the champion, those that are interested in the claim that I have made may go and review the thread and decide for themselves, I see no point in repeating myself. I would not ask someone to repeat what they have already written and I don't expect to treated any differently.

 

 

As I've mentioned previously, you really do seem to love the strawman argument. Iggy has already amply replied to your completely fallacious arguments and claims, but just to reinforce it... Nobody here is refusing that a god "could" exist. Nor is anybody here claiming that they "could never see evidence of an existing god." If you are struggling to clearly understand what we write, then ask questions and request we clarify our stance... Don't continue to make such wrong-headed assumptions and argue against total misrepresentations. It doesn't bode well for your position.

 

...It actually reinforces the threads central proposition.

 

Ok, so to recap a god could exist and evidence of a god could exist, but yet people who believe they have found evidence and believe that a god does exist are broken because you don't know of such evidence. Am I mistaken?

 

 

This is a misunderstanding. For most atheists, it's not an "active refusal that god exists," just the lack of an affirmative belief in god or gods. It may seem subtle, but it's a tremendously important semantic difference.

 

One does not have to actively refuse that god(s) exist to be atheist as you've suggested here. An atheist is literally just someone who is a-theist, or not-theist. It means they lack an affirmative belief in god or gods, and that's all. What you're referring to is one of the less common forms of atheism known as "strong atheism" or "hard atheism," wherein the person actively believes there is NO god. They don't just not believe in god(s), they actually believe there are none.

 

Most of the atheist population, however, simply find no compelling reason to accept as true or valid the proposition that one does. They don't actively believe or refuse to believe there are existent gods, just see no reason to believe that one does. Most of this population would gladly review and accept adequate evidence to the contrary if any were provided. The point, however, is none has been provided despite thousands of years of attempts by believers such as yourself.

 

If I'm wrong, I'm glad to admit it... But you have to first show that. I don't refuse to accept evidence. I don't refuse that a god "could" exist. I just find it highly unlikely given the arguments theists put forth, the incredible lack of adequate evidence to scale with the extraordinary nature of the claim, and hence the idea is just not very compelling... and most certainly not compelling enough to live life as if it were true and valid.

 

Does this help you to better understand my position, and the position of people like me?

 

 

Please don't take this the wrong way but I can't be bothered about your position, you really are not of any importance to me. I have not been tailoring my responses to you, I do not feel the need to convince you of anything. The individual is responsible for himself and if you are interested in finding the truth I suggest that you look in every possible place, truth is a very rare quality and is not likely to come looking for you. You might not wake up every day and say god cannot exist but that does not mean that you are open to discovering a god that does exist and from that perspective the two are one and the same.

[iNow]

INow, I have respect for you and the forum rules and I'm not trying to derail anything, but...

I've asked for these posts about "what is atheism" to be split off. We covered most of this ground recently here (and elsewhere): http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/64207-advantages-of-becoming-an-atheist/

 

The short version: Agnostic is a claim about knowledge. Atheist is a claim about belief. You can be agnostic atheist or agnostic theist, but not just agnostic.

 

Again, though... Can we PLEASE take this to the appropriate thread if you wish to continue?

 

---

I'm not interested in being crowned the champion, those that are interested in the claim that I have made may go and review the thread and decide for themselves, I see no point in repeating myself.

Why are you being like this? This isn't about crowning anything. You were asked for clarification, and you refuse to provide it. You are not approaching the discussion in good faith, as you won't even bother to answer question that is both simple and direct.

 

Ok, so to recap a god could exist and evidence of a god could exist, but yet people who believe they have found evidence and believe that a god does exist are broken because you don't know of such evidence. Am I mistaken?

Yes, you are. The challenge is to what you are claiming serves as evidence. As shared earlier, it's as if you're pointing to a thunderstorm and claiming it to be evidence of Thor. We would not allow it to be evidence of Thor, and hence what you point to is not evidence of Yahweh or any other gods.

 

Please don't take this the wrong way but I can't be bothered about your position, you really are not of any importance to me.

That's fine. It's sort of asshole-ish, but fine. My point was that you were arguing from an obvious misunderstanding, and I merely sought to clarify it for you. If you'd wish to remain ignorant and continue being wrong, that's your prerogative.

[Appolinaria]

I've asked for these posts about "what is atheism" to be split off. We covered most of this ground recently here (and elsewhere): http://www.sciencefo...ing-an-atheist/

 

The short version: Agnostic is a claim about knowledge. Atheist is a claim about belief. You can be agnostic atheist or agnostic theist, but not just agnostic.

 

Again, though... Can we PLEASE take this to the appropriate thread if you wish to continue?

 

 

This isn't just a "what is atheism?" question, it pertains to what you're discussing with Villain. Anyway, I will read previous posts. Apologies for the apparent annoyance.

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

To maintain context in this thread I'd rather not split the above posts on what is atheism.

But, if you wish to continue that discussion I would like you to do so in the above linked thread:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/64207-advantages-of-becoming-an-atheist/

This way people can continue to follow this thread. I think everyone needs to try to keep this on track, it's a rather big thread now and has covered a lot of ground. Big threads tend to wander around the topic somewhat so we've been a bit relaxed on trying to keep people on topic but this I feel is something that would be better discussed in the other thread.

[iNow]

Apologies from me, too. I just get annoyed having to have this same conversation a thousand times. We covered it here, too: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/59360-what-is-your-justification-for-believing-in-a-god/page__view__findpost__p__673875

 

And here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/64226-christian-evidence/page__view__findpost__p__660654

 

...and here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/62937-atheism-agnosticism-theism

 

And a few more.