What If There Is a God?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
God is in the same category as those examples

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the presumption on which you will disagree with the Theists. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it so.

PairTheBoard

[Phil153]

OK, let's try this from another angle. From wikipedia:

Scientology claims that a galactic warlord called Xenu brought billions of people to Earth 75 million years ago, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Their souls then clustered together and stuck to the bodies of the living. The alien souls continue to do this today, causing a variety of physical ill-effects in modern-day humans.

Is this ridiculous?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
God is in the same category as those examples

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the presumption on which you will disagree with the Theists. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it so.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I mentioned that I can't make sense of the OP,[ QUOTE ]
So if attacks on Religion evaporate under the assumption that a God does exist, aren't such attacks being made under the presumption that God doesn't exist?

[/ QUOTE ] so I'll try another angle.

I've mentioned before that the existence of god would not lessen the ridiculousness of most religious claims ( unless you think claiming 2+2=4 because the grass is green is not a ridiculous claim). You haven't addressed that in the OP. Presuming there is a god would still leave most theist claims ridiculous. Iow, essentially it's not the existence of god that is under attack, it's the goofy reasoning that is given for believing it.

We know theists don't think of atheism as ridiculous because it's the same stance they have to virtually everything else in their life including other religions.

What is the 'proper' reaction to the "I have an invisible dragon in my garage" claims? Presume there is one along with them? How do you do that? Pat them gently on the arm, "If you say so". Offer to give them flying lessons? what? what? what?

I can't believe you're merely stating "if we all agree then we wouldn't argue". please clarify.


luckyme

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I've mentioned before that the existence of god would not lessen the ridiculousness of most religious claims ( unless you think claiming 2+2=4 because the grass is green is not a ridiculous claim). You haven't addressed that in the OP.

[/ QUOTE ]

I addressed that here,


[ QUOTE ]
Suppose there is a God and we have been searching for ways to understand him through history in our various religions? Of course we haven't come to much of a consensus yet. But wouldn't that be expected in the situation?


[/ QUOTE ]

Look back at things like the Clockwork Solar system model they built prior to Kepler. They actually had little physical models where you could turn a handle and watch the sun move around the earth and the planets do their thing. In hindsight it looks ridiculous but at the time it looked pretty good.

I've already gone over this point in previous posts. Please reread and quote what I've said pertaining to it. I don't mind hearing your points of contention with what I've said. But I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, let's try this from another angle. From wikipedia:

Scientology claims that a galactic warlord called Xenu brought billions of people to Earth 75 million years ago, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Their souls then clustered together and stuck to the bodies of the living. The alien souls continue to do this today, causing a variety of physical ill-effects in modern-day humans.

Is this ridiculous?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No

[/ QUOTE ]

You've brought this point up before Phil and I already responded to it. What was it about my response that you disagree with?

PairTheBoard

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I've mentioned before that the existence of god would not lessen the ridiculousness of most religious claims ( unless you think claiming 2+2=4 because the grass is green is not a ridiculous claim). You haven't addressed that in the OP.

[/ QUOTE ]

I addressed that here,


[ QUOTE ]
Suppose there is a God and we have been searching for ways to understand him through history in our various religions? Of course we haven't come to much of a consensus yet. But wouldn't that be expected in the situation?


[/ QUOTE ]

Look back at things like the Clockwork Solar system model they built prior to Kepler. They actually had little physical models where you could turn a handle and watch the sun move around the earth and the planets do their thing. In hindsight it looks ridiculous but at the time it looked pretty good.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like debating within an analogy, I prefer they are just 'theme setters' but I'll try it -

I don't think Kepler or Einstein claimed that Aristotle being wrong is positive evidence that they are right. ??
or have I missed the point of your analogy?

luckyme

[andyfox]

You're right. The best way to counter an argument is to offer facts and logic and, where possible, proof, not to name-call. But then what? As David pointed out recently, Houdini traveled around the country and exposed every medium he encountered as a fraud. Has there ever been proof that a supposedly supernatural event has actually occurred? Yet people believe in angels and ghosts and ESP and rushes and mediums. People are vested in Jesus and the Bible. It's the greatest story ever sold. Sklansky has offered logic as to why it's unlikely to be true; often, the response is we can't expect to understand an infinite God with our finite minds. Pretty hard to move somebody off of that argument.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK, let's try this from another angle. From wikipedia:

Scientology claims that a galactic warlord called Xenu brought billions of people to Earth 75 million years ago, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Their souls then clustered together and stuck to the bodies of the living. The alien souls continue to do this today, causing a variety of physical ill-effects in modern-day humans.

Is this ridiculous?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No

[/ QUOTE ]

You've brought this point up before Phil and I already responded to it. What was it about my response that you disagree with?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]
I wasn't aware that you had. I want to see if you're willing to condemn something, unequivocally, to the scrapheap of nonsense. If not, any religious discussion with you is pointless.

I'd also ask you to consider how we'd go about showing the above to be untrue, based on "reason" and "logic" and "evidence". When you get sick, I'm sure you dismiss this explanation out of hand. Why? What gives you the justification for doing so, while believing in an equally insane story of people being born of virgins, walking on water, and rising from the dead?

[PairTheBoard]

Look guys. Here is the logical point I'm getting at in a nutshell. This is what I see the Atheists sometimes doing.

A. If X is true then you are ridiculous.
T. Of course. But I'm not ridiculous.
A. I just proved you are.
T. No. You didn't.
A. Yes I did. X. You are ridiculous.

You can disagree and tell me Atheist don't do that. But at least understand what it is I'm claiming they do.

I think you are doing that with your Scientology example Phil. What I think about their beliefs is not relevant. What I'm talking about is your interaction with them. It goes like this in the above exchange.

X = The tenants of Scientology are ridiculous.

PairTheBoard

[Ben K]

I don't think most atheistic attacks on god are made on the assumption of no god. Given the lack of evidence, one conclusion has equal validity as another with regards the existence of god. It's essentially a non argument and therefore completely irrelevant to any attack on religion.

When I attack religion, I'm thinking about the actions of people and their intentions, not what little piece of mental guesswork they've done in order to justify themselves. I can't disprove the existence of god but as reasonable, rational people, we should be able to agree basic, simple things like "It's bad to allow rabbi's to suck freshly circumcised foreskins off infants" or "It's wrong to persecute gays" and we should be able to agree these things allowing for the unresolved existence of god argument. Even if we have to make it contingent on future information, that would still be an improvement on the current situation, so a change on the gay issue could be:

"Until further confirmation from god is received, we acknowlege that 'gays are evil' could be a human mistake in our holy texts and will therefore treat them as normal fellow human beings."

Then, we'd have a decent improvement in the world which would last until god's existence was actually settled. The fact that you theists are catagorically unable to separate the two issues (moral behaviour and god's existence) and deal with reality with god's existence as an unknown means that you won't make any changes to your irrational prejudices and atheists will continue to attack.

In short, attacks are made on the premise that god's existence is not definative either way and, allowing for that, we still need to deal with the evil behaviours of people using their belief as justification.