SkinWalker said:
First, that you would infer the statements made by myself or godless with regard to the logic of creators, gods, etc as inflammatory is, in itself, reason to believe you are theistic. Only believers allow themselves to become upset or offended when those that refuse to buy into their superstitions and beliefs question or criticize them.
You misunderstood me. They weren't inflammatory to myself, but to the believers here. I was saying that the attempt was fruitless and that you shouldn't bother wasting your time.
I don't "ignore" the belief, I criticize it. I question it. I say its bollocks. If you argue from the point of view of the believer, you deserve to have the illogic of the belief thrown in your face just for asserting the belief as valid.
I wasn't saying it was a valid belief. I was not arguing for the
position of the believer, I was arguing that the very nature of that kind of belief invalidates your point in their minds, and so trying to convince them of it's fallacy is pointless.
I dare because you argue from the point of view of the silly superstitions. Indeed, I probably confused you with another member whom I remembered as stating their beliefs to include a god. I checked and came back here to edit my post but you already replied. For confusing you with someone else, I offer my apologies. But I must say, your response is quite telling. You may not be a believer in gods (and just like to argue their beleifs for them -an apologist's apologist?). A quick review reveals that you're just the guy that asserted Star Wars wasn't science fiction!
Not once have I argued in favor of superstitions. I have never tried to say that any of the beliefs of theists were valid or made sense. I have tried over and over to reiterate that it's a complete waste of time to argue with them against it. You are not making them feel stupid (like some of you want), and you are certainly not changing their minds on the subject. You are only making them angry, and causing conflict on this board that cannot be resolved. I have not argued any of their arguments for them, if you review my posts in the religion forum, but rather I have pointed out the problems that I see in the arguments against their beliefs. I, personally, don't believe the things they believe, I just get annoyed when people attack other people as stupid or ignorant because of religious beliefs, which more often then not have absolutely nothing to do with the world as you see it and doesn't follow any of the same rules, and so applying the rules of the world that you see is useless. I don't believe in that "other" world, because I believe in what I observe around me more than that which I don't. Saying I am a theist is just a way for you to incite anger in me, and I don't appreciate it.
Most likely because you're a theist in denial. But that's just my opinion.
That's impossible. You can't believe something that you don't know you believe. Belief is a
conscious decision. The fact that I say I am not a theist, means I am not a theist because I am the only person who can know whether or not I am.
Now who's the "arrogant little piss-ant?" What's my "position" supposed to be about? And why is it supposed to be taboo to question and criticize the very beliefs of religious nutters who are asserting these beliefs as a means to codify them in our government? Many of the hot topics in the so-called culture wars today involve religious superstitions being applied to legislation that will affect all of society, regardless of religion or creed. Somehow its okay, even appropriate to criticize others for their political ideologies, but taboo to even question the religious positions and assertions of others.
I didn't say it was taboo to question their beliefs, I said it was vicious and inflammatory of the atheists on this board,
in general, to question them in the manner in which they question them, which usually consists of "there is no god. if you believe in anything even resembling that which I classify as religious, you are a fool." This is not the way that someone arguing a position goes about a discussion, but rather it's how someone attempts to goad another person into emotional reactions. You don't question their beliefs in simple, straightforward manners. You make a negative assertion about their belief, provide some half-hearted support, and then tell them they're an idiot.
That is what annoys me. It's your (not just you, but the vast majority of the atheists on this board) style of debate that I take issue with, because it
always sounds as if you are arguing from a position of superiority on a subject that no one is qualitifed to take such a position on, and
that is why I am usually on the side of the theists in the argument, not defending their beliefs, but defending
them.
I don't buy it. Religion is too pervasive of a human characteristic to let go unchecked.
If you mean that it's too pervasive to avoid discussing, I agree with you completely. If you mean it's a disease that must be eradicated from the mind of man, then I take issue with the statement. Read above.
I don't believe there is a god. I could never say that a god or gods don't exist, but I've seen no evidence to suggest one is even necessary much less in existence. What you mistake for "narrow-mindedness" is critique and inquiry on a human institution that too many simply tolerate without question and inquiry. NO human endeavor deserves such carte blanche, particularly one that has historically been the root of the most evil and despicable human actions through wars, genocide, inquisition, and oppression.
Alright, you've just said something reasonable. I apologize for reacting with anger, and for bunching you up with the most annoying of the atheist camp. I understand your position. Yes, of course no human endeavor deserves a carte blanche. Religion deserves question and inquiry, and I'm not arguing against that inquiry. I am arguing against
how it is conducted. I happen not to agree with your assertion that
religion has been the cause of so much suffering, but that human beings in general are predisposed toward this type of behavior. Ultimately, such a question
is a matter of interpretation, and I recognize the position that atheists are coming from when making this kind of argument against religion. The thing that annoys me is that the vasy majority of the atheists I have known (which is the vast majority of the people I have known) are arguing against religion
because they hate it, and not because they have an honest, academic interest in the phenomenon. That is what I always take issue with. I can't stand it when people argue against something they hate wearing the guise of intellectualism.
I say you're full of it and I re-assert that you're probably a theist in denial. First, you react to simple logical statements of godless and myself as if it were a personal attack on you -and they were very logical observations that don't have satisfactory answers. You offer the "it's magic" argument, which you backtrack on and state isn't your own. You assert that we're making "sweeping statements of absolute truth" but don't offer any example or even try to refute the statements with any argument other than "it's magic" (which you claim isn't your argument).
That's because it
isn't my argument. Again, I was pointing out that it doesn't work when discussing the issue with theists because
they believe that "it's magic". I wasn't reacting as if it were a personal attack against me. I was annoyed at the personal attack on people who hadn't provoked such statements. The only time I reacted as if it was a personal attack on me was when you called me a theist; which was a personal attack. I apologize for reacting with hostility, again, but I don't categorize myself as a theist because I do not believe in God, gods, or the supernatural. I don't look at the world through religious eyes, and I can't stand it when people claim that I do when it is
utterly beyond their ability to know such things. I am not a "theist in denial" as you say, because belief is conscious. I cannot believe in something that I don't know I believe in. You want to talk about logical errors? I'm sorry, but look at your own.
