House On Fire?

[superluminal]

This is a little dialog that tries to illustrate the position of the common garden varitety atheist. We atheists and theists can dissect it and have some fun if you want. Or not.

------------------------------------------------------------

“Look! That house is on fire!”

“Where?”

“Over on that island.”

“Oh. I don’t see any smoke.”

“But look! It’s glowing orange.”

“I don’t see any flames.”

“Bu t the glow. It’s definitely on fire.”

“Could it just be the warm lighting from the windows?”

“Don’t be rediculous. Lights don’t glow that color of orange. We must do something!”

“Well, I think we need to get some binoculars or a boat and get a closer look.”

“Look. I told you, it’s burning!”

“Umm... I don’t think so...”

“We need to call the fire department, The EMT’s, the news...”

“Woah there. No smoke? No flames?”

“You don’t believe me?”

“Well, I just don’t have enough evidence until we get a closer look. I think we need to prove that it’s burning before we alert the whole township. It looks just like a warm glow from the windows to me.”

“NO. Look. It’s obvious it’s burning. We need to alert everyone. And then we need to study this house to see how it contains the fire with no visible smoke or flames. Then we need to pass an ordinance that all houses shall be built according to the plan of this one.”

“Based on...?”

“Its amazing flame and smoke suppression design! Are you blind? Just look! It’s on fire, but no smoke or flames!”

“Err, that’s what I’ve been saying. It’s not on....”


“Look. If all you’re going to do is stand there while this house burns, I seriously question your morals and your sanity. What kind of person would want to keep such a house design from the public? I’m calling everyone. Just because you don’t believe the amazing properties of this house dosen’t make it untrue.”

“Ok. Right. All I’m asking is that we get some evidence that it’s really burning.”

“Evidence? Why don’t you just go and prove to me it’s not burning?”

“Huh? I never said...”

“Right! You can’t can you?”

“But I never claimed anything about the house! You came over and told me that a house that looks fine to me is burning. All I asked was that you show me some proof that it is before we...”

“Arrgghh! I can’t believe you! Do I look like I have a boat? Can I go over there and prove it’s burning? And you don’t have a boat either. You can’t prove it’s not.”

“But I’m not claiming it’s not, I just don’t see any signs that it is! It looks like an ordinary house to me. I just want to verify that it’s really burning so we don’t get everyone in an uproar and start forcing useless building codes on people and...”

“Look. Why don’t you quit claiming it’s not on fire and give me a hand calling the authorities? You’re can even help me with the legislation for the new house safety act.”

“I’m not claiming...”

“Fine. You won’t accept the obvious when it’s staring you in the face.”

“I just want you to give me some proof of your claims that the orange glow is really fire and that the house is amazingly constructed to contain the smoke and fire.”

“Why should I? Why don’t you just prove it’s not? If you can’t I rest my case.”

But you’re the one who started it. You’re the one who’s saying...”

 

[Cyperium]

Maybe...

Too exaggerated...

The theist does have a better indication than that whatever you believe. If the theist knows what he is talking about the discussion wouldn't reflect the story.

 

[superluminal]

Too exaggerated...

The theist does have a better indication than that whatever you believe.

No. I think it's just that simple. Really. If you toss all of the hyperbole and window dressing, it's really just that simple.

The point however, was more to illustrate the position of atheists and why we ask for proof before enacting an entire societal regime based on houses that some people think might be burning.

 

[superluminal]

"If" the theist knows...

Isn't that "IF" at the heart of all theism? And pseudoscience? And superstition?

 

[Photizo]

Isn't that "IF" at the heart of all theism? And pseudoscience? And superstition?

No...at the heart of all Theism is the Word of God: "In the beginning God..."

 

[superluminal]

No...at the heart of all Theism is the Word of God: "In the beginning God..."

OK. And just how do you know this was anything more than just another myth, like thousands of others, written by bored or stoned (opium?) sheep herders? Seriously? What do you have other than a selfreferential loop of:

"It's god's word"

"How do you know?"

"The bible says so."

"How do you know the bible is true?"

"Because it's gods word".

Right? That's really all you have. Pretty rediculous when you clear out all of the fluff and hyperbole (my new favorite word).

 

[(Q)]

fluff and hyperbole (my new favorite word).

Innuendo and hyperbole work fine together.

 

[Nickelodeon]

fluff is my fav word too.

 

[Cyperium]

No. I think it's just that simple. Really. If you toss all of the hyperbole and window dressing, it's really just that simple.

The point however, was more to illustrate the position of atheists and why we ask for proof before enacting an entire societal regime based on houses that some people think might be burning.

Society is about social interactions, not about science.

We have a lot of people that believe in God, obviously as society is a meeting place for these people too it should reflect that. There are people that aren't interested in books, but libraries are all over the place no matter what. If you aren't interested in books, you just don't go to the libraries (even if you are in some situations, like school, obliged to go to the libraries).

If you are an atheist, you might want to vote for someone supporting your view, or perhaps just ignore the "in God we trust" text on the dollar bills...

It's in society we live, there are a value in believing in God, that value is reflected in society, if it wasn't so the people believing in God would feel like it is not represented. Atheist who lack that value, are represented anyway by the parts of society that lacks that value.

 

[(Q)]

Society is about social interactions, not about science.

We have a lot of people that believe in God, obviously as society is a meeting place for these people too it should reflect that.

Then, you should have no problem whatsoever incorporating Sharia Law into your local and federal laws. A Muslim society in America should be reflected, as you say.

If you aren't interested in books, you just don't go to the libraries (even if you are in some situations, like school, obliged to go to the libraries).

Why wouldn't you be interested in books?

It's in society we live, there are a value in believing in God, that value is reflected in society, if it wasn't so the people believing in God would feel like it is not represented. Atheist who lack that value, are represented anyway by the parts of society that lacks that value.

Less violence and crime are represented in societies NOT dominant of theist mindset and decision making processes. If these are the values you hold to your god, then they are well represented in those societies.

 

[superluminal]

Society is about social interactions, not about science.

We have a lot of people that believe in God, obviously as society is a meeting place for these people too it should reflect that. There are people that aren't interested in books, but libraries are all over the place no matter what. If you aren't interested in books, you just don't go to the libraries (even if you are in some situations, like school, obliged to go to the libraries).

If you are an atheist, you might want to vote for someone supporting your view, or perhaps just ignore the "in God we trust" text on the dollar bills...

It's in society we live, there are a value in believing in God, that value is reflected in society, if it wasn't so the people believing in God would feel like it is not represented. Atheist who lack that value, are represented anyway by the parts of society that lacks that value.

Ok. That's all fine. But when society begins forcing you to go to the library? This is what non-believers are wary of and try to be vigilant against. Theocracies by definition force their populations to adopt many rules and regs that are completely defined by their "beliefs" and not by reason. They cannot be challenged on the basis of observations and are immutable.

Frightening, yes?

 

[Photizo]

OK. And just how do you know this was anything more than just another myth, like thousands of others, written by bored or stoned (opium?) sheep herders? Seriously? What do you have other than a selfreferential loop of:

"It's god's word"

"How do you know?"

"The bible says so."

"How do you know the bible is true?"

"Because it's gods word".

Right? That's really all you have. Pretty rediculous when you clear out all of the fluff and hyperbole (my new favorite word).

"That's all you really have"....hmmm. What do you have? Nothing. Silence. Your own thoughts and musings... exerted in complete total ignorance...the absence of sure knowledge and in its place: the 'testimony' of lifeless objects...objects which do not possess the ability to honestly tell where they are from or how they came to be. Anything you decipher coming from them is really lost in translation due to the limitations that occur in both 'transmitter' and 'receiver' by definition...again, ultimately you are alone with your own thoughts...

The reasoning you follow from what you consider 'data', 'evidence' etc. is essentially just as circular. What differs are the respective objects of our respective faith. You trust yourself and the testimony of dead, lifeless objects. I trust the Living God and testimony of His Incarnate/Written Word.

 

[Cyperium]

Then, you should have no problem whatsoever incorporating Sharia Law into your local and federal laws. A Muslim society in America should be reflected, as you say.

It should be reflected. Perhaps not by incorporating Sharia Laws.

Why wouldn't you be interested in books?

I don't know, some people just aren't interested in books...

Less violence and crime are represented in societies NOT dominant of theist mindset and decision making processes.

I don't think so, why would it be so? Rather people in poor countries and that are in misery and war situations have a natural tendency to seek strength and support in God.

It's the poorness of these people that are the problem, and the inability of us in our wealth to give.

 

[Cyperium]

Ok. That's all fine. But when society begins forcing you to go to the library?

This is what happens in schools. We just have to deal with it, but society doesn't drag you to church.

Society doesn't force you to believe in any religion if you don't want to.

This is what non-believers are wary of and try to be vigilant against. Theocracies by definition force their populations to adopt many rules and regs that are completely defined by their "beliefs" and not by reason. They cannot be challenged on the basis of observations and are immutable.

Frightening, yes?

The rules and laws nearly allways have other purpouses than just religious ones.

 

[Cyperium]

Isn't that "IF" at the heart of all theism? And pseudoscience? And superstition?

All theists doesn't have the same skills of arguing against atheists, and mind you, all atheists doesn't have the same skill of arguing with theists. Isn't that "IF" applicable to you too?

 

[superluminal]

"That's all you really have"....hmmm. What do you have? Nothing. Silence. Your own thoughts and musings... exerted in complete total ignorance...the absence of sure knowledge and in its place: the 'testimony' of lifeless objects...objects which do not possess the ability to honestly tell where they are from or how they came to be. Anything you decipher coming from them is really lost in translation due to the limitations that occur in both 'transmitter' and 'receiver' by definition...again, ultimately you are alone with your own thoughts...

The reasoning you follow from what you consider 'data', 'evidence' etc. is essentially just as circular. What differs are the respective objects of our respective faith. You trust yourself and the testimony of dead, lifeless objects. I trust the Living God and testimony of His Incarnate/Written Word.

Well, besides the fact that this isn't about me, what have you got that shows your "living god" to be anything less vacuous than what you propose that I have?

Maybe without the hyperbole this time?

 

[superluminal]

Isn't that "IF" applicable to you too?

Heh. No. I propose nothing but nature as it is. You are the one proposing an entire pantheon of entities, powers, attributes, etc.

Did you read my house story up there?

 

[superluminal]

This is what happens in schools. We just have to deal with it, but society doesn't drag you to church.

Society doesn't force you to believe in any religion if you don't want to.

The rules and laws nearly allways have other purpouses than just religious ones.

Really? History indicates that what we have here could easily be an anomaly. An eyeblink in the almost purely theocratic slavery of the human species.

I think we need to pay attention to it, don't you?

 

[Cyperium]

Heh. No. I propose nothing but nature as it is. You are the one proposing an entire pantheon of entities, powers, attributes, etc.

Did you read my house story up there?

Then your ability to describe nature "as you see it" is dependant on how much you know of nature "as it is" and your ability to clearly show that to others. As is the theist discussion dependant on his ability to clearly show what he believe to others.

 

[Cyperium]

Really? History indicates that what we have here could easily be an anomaly. An eyeblink in the almost purely theocratic slavery of the human species.

I think we need to pay attention to it, don't you?

Pay attention where attention is due. You don't live in the past, you live in the present.

Otherwise you change the entire framework of this thread to suit your needs, and take us to a discussion which belongs in the 19th century (and before).