What If There Is a God?

[RED FACE]

[ QUOTE ]
Aren't most of the Atheist attacks on Religion based on the assumption that there is no God?

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read the rest of the thread but...

No, and I think it's important how such things are phrased. They start with the decision that they will only believe in things they can detect - this is the scientific view. Science really makes no claim about whether there is a God or not because science is about detecting and assessing observable phenomena.

Most peoples understanding of the definition or description of God in modern times is that He is not detectable(this excludes the argument that the fact we exist is evidence of God).

"Science" cannot discover God because science is in the business of detecting only the natural, not the super-natural.

I guess I'd call this a definitional truism.

I don't think any deist today believes that God lives in the clouds or on Mount Olympus or sits on a throne in the ocean as some atheists would like.

So, this is like assuming there is no God but to be specific it's not an assumption but a standard of belief.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
The proclamation that they are ridiculous because "we know" they are ridiculous, is not an argument. It is a proclamation of your premise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's really just shorthand for, "those stories are patently ridiculous to anyone who needs evidence in order to accept something as true."

Some people believe that a talking snake tempted Adam and Eve. This is ridiculous. I state that as a fact, not an opinion. And yet many believe it is true. But why waste time outlining all the reasons why this is ridiculous? It's obvious to any rational person that snakes do not have the capacity to conduct conversations with human beings.

But if a person doesn't require evidence then there are no limits to what they can find "not ridiculous", and there's no convincing them anyway. So why argue? Might as well just call it ridiculous (which it is) and let believers retort that you just don't have the Gift of Faith.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I failed logic. Remind me which principle of it says we should grant the other guys claim any credence because he says he has evidence. Then when we ask for it, he says, "trust me, I have it, I've experienced it".


[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have to grant him credence. You can assert that you don't find his evidence acceptable. However he does. So you disagree on this point. You can give arguments for why his "evidence" is unacceptable. You can point out that the unacceptability of his evidence implies his position is ridiculous. But it is unfair of you to insist he see how ridiculous his position is when you have not proven the unacceptability of his evidence. You remain in disagreement on that point.

His position is only ridiculous if his evidence is indeed unacceptable. If you haven't proven that you haven't proven him ridiculous. You may think you have proven that. That is your belief. The Belief his evidence is unacceptable. Proclaiming him ridiculous based on that Belief is just a proclamation of that Belief. You've given up providing arguments for it at that point and have just begun to propagandize.

[ QUOTE ]
Claims do not gain status merely by being made.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly my point.

PairTheBoard

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But we do know that most religious stories and interpretations are a sad pile of nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

The proclamation that they are ridiculous because "we know" they are ridiculous, is not an argument. It is a proclamation of your premise.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]
You missed the last part of my post.
[ QUOTE ]
Even theists agree with that last point

[/ QUOTE ]

Case in point: You don't follow the proclamations of Muhammed. Because you believe them to be ridiculous. You don't sacrifice humans to the Sun God. Because you believe that to be ridiculous. You don't leave offerings for the various gods of Hinduism, because you believe them to be ridiculous. You have probably had unmarried sex, worked on a Sunday, and been rude to your parents at some point. Because you believe those commandments from the mouth of God himself to be ridiculous.

Do you see what I'm getting at? If I'm not justified in calling the weirdo bled Jew myth ridiculous, then you're not justified in calling any of those other things ridiculous, which you do implicitly by not following them, despite their extreme importance if true.

[luckyme]

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Claims do not gain status merely by being made.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly my point.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you wouldn't dispute the cow jump claim merely because I present no evidence other than saying, "I get this strange feeling and can see cows at great height".
Since you have no proof they don't -
You would say what, "hmmmm, fairly reasonable argument but you haven't quite made the cut." Others may just say, "don't be ridiculous."

You've merely dressed up the 'prove a negative' issue in cowhide.

luckyme

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But we do know that most religious stories and interpretations are a sad pile of nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

The proclamation that they are ridiculous because "we know" they are ridiculous, is not an argument. It is a proclamation of your premise.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]
You missed the last part of my post.
[ QUOTE ]
Even theists agree with that last point

[/ QUOTE ]

Case in point: You don't follow the proclamations of Muhammed. Because you believe them to be ridiculous. You don't sacrifice humans to the Sun God. Because you believe that to be ridiculous. You don't leave offerings for the various gods of Hinduism, because you believe them to be ridiculous. You have probably had unmarried sex, worked on a Sunday, and been rude to your parents at some point. Because you believe those commandments from the mouth of God himself to be ridiculous.

Do you see what I'm getting at? If I'm not justified in calling the weirdo bled Jew myth ridiculous, then you're not justified in calling any of those other things ridiculous, which you do implicitly by not following them, despite their extreme importance if true.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think certain tenets of Religion are ridiculous then you should certainly say so. But saying so doesn't make it so. You should not expect believers in those tenets to just take your word for it. And you certainly aren't going to convince any of them by simply repeating it over and over. Maybe they see other religions as ridiculous. Maybe they see you as ridiculous. Everybody calling everybody ridiculous doesn't get us anywhere.

PairTheBoard

[govman6767]

Ahh but if there is a god than the Athiests will be forgiven and will still be allowed into heaven while at the same time not being forced into a miserable, no money, no fun, life

[PairTheBoard]

Here's another example of an Atheist attack on Religion based on Proclamation of the Premise.

A. "Religion should be abolished".
T. "Why"?
A. "Because it's irrational".
T. "It's not irrational. You are being irrational to say so."
A. "I have good reasons for saying so. They are Yada Yada Yada Yada".
T. "Yada Yida, Yada Yida, Yada Yida, Yada Yida."
A. "Your Yida's are irrational".
T. "Your Yada to my Yida is irrational."
A. "Well now you're obviously being irrational and ridiculous. And the fact you can't see that proves you are irrational. Therefore Religion should be abolished."

The Proclamation of the Premise is in the last statement by the Atheist. Saying it's so doesn't make it so.

PairTheBoard

[MegaloMialo]

Pair why can't i have an answer to my question?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Pair why can't i have an answer to my question?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to know more about how I think, read all my posts in the archives. There's nearly 3000 of them. That's my answer. Now quit complaining. You can't always get your way.

PairTheBoard