strawmen of god

[scifes]

snakelord, the amount of people believing in them isn't the only difference, and that difference's implications are more than proof of one or the other's non/existence.

and we're discussing that now; whether the amount of people believing god exists affects the possibility that god exists, instead of prove that god exists.

the ad populum format is a narrow view of a sub case of comparing god to leprechauns.

may it turns out that numbers don't matter, please chew on these:
1-god is an (invented concept ) to explain the origin of the world the origin of us, where we will be going and such really important questions people ask themselves, and really care for the answers, which, it seems to some atheists..is comparable to the questions (if there are any) answered by flying speggati monsters(does it eat or gets eaten?), invisible unicorns(what happens to the grass they eat?), tooth fairies and santa clause and leprechauns also are really important concepts for every human, one which really occupies their thinking and they really care about.
what more evidence for the importance of the god issue is there tha

atheists themselves don't believe in either, fighting tooth and nail to disprove god, while leaving santa clause alone? is the santa clause lie as big as the god lie to them?
why do they compare them to each other always?
because they think they're both lies, and i say,
strawman.

so that covers: importance in people's lives.
we can also add that
a- belief in god affects the health, life span, happiness of the believer, as medical researches have shown. sadly the same can't be said for the belief in fairies.
b-many argue there can be no morals without god, with no morals, heh heh heh, we'll still manage eh?...... though none have been heard to make the same claim of morals relying on the existence of invisible unicorns.

example: "what is love" to "does deep fried sushi exist?"
or "does god exists" to "do leprechauns exist"


2-amount of literature, study, and history there is to both sides.
example
comparing Shakespeare's plays, to the recent movie "inglorious bastards".
or "god" to a village's "local ghost story"

3-number of followers or believers(in debate).

4- do i need to provide more?


can a straw man be any strawier?:shrug:

 

[SnakeLord]

and we're discussing that now; whether the amount of people believing god exists affects the possibility that god exists...

You'll have to forgive me but I am unsure exactly why you are responding to one of your own statements. While I'm not one of those people that specifically agrees with the claim that talking to oneself is a sign that you're crazy, typing posts to yourself certainly comes close.

I know what we're discussing. Apparently you don't so felt it necessary to remind yourself.

what more evidence for the importance of the god issue is there tha[n that]

Interestingly, we're not discussing whether there is evidence that the 'god issue' is important to people. I would certainly agree that it is given that it has been an integral part of humans ever since being conjured up by those predecessors of ours that couldn't work out why things were the way they were and needed a good method with which to secure all the gorgeous virgins for themselves.

Note: Nobody is contesting that the 'god issue' isn't important. Straw anyone?

atheists themselves don't believe in either, fighting tooth and nail to disprove god, while leaving santa clause alone?

While I wouldn't make it sound quite so dramatic - although I'll understand if you're into theatre, it is only typical that society raised into religious belief - through torture, death, punishment, and consistent indoctrination would consider 'god issue' an important subject. Frankly you'd be lucky to go one song, one TV programme, one movie or one discussion on a night out that doesn't involve a religious term - even when used to insult someone.

why do they compare them to each other always?

This was explained in my very first post to you. All this time you've been attempting to insult me and then finally showing that you didn't even read my very first post.

a- belief in god affects the health, life span, happiness of the believer, as medical researches have shown. sadly the same can't be said for the belief in fairies.

Actually, any placebo has the same effect - be it gods or pills with no medication in them. As for your statement, I would refute it on several grounds. For starters the less educated, poorer nations tend to have a higher % of religiosity. For example:

In England religiosity is about 33% whereas in Mali it is 92%. In England six people per thousand die before the age of five whereas in Mali it's 1 in 4. This alone completely obliterates any claim you make to religious people being healthier or living longer. As for happiness, I dunno.. guess you'll have to ask their parents.

Finally on this point: If it makes people happy, healthy, bald, or rich is utterly inconsequential to whether it is true or not.

b-many argue there can be no morals without god, with no morals, heh heh heh, we'll still manage eh?

The argument is royally flawed. Even ants don't go about whacking other ants just for the mere sake of it or because they've got nothing better to do on the weekend. Unlike turtles, we are a social species that depend upon others for our existence and so emotional bonds will naturally develop as will certain standards of behaviour - that aid our survival and the survival of our group.

2-amount of literature, study, and history there is to both sides.

This was covered earlier. Given that humanity has grown through it's childhood era with such belief, it's only par for the course that it would have a bigger history. This isn't an argument to its truth.

4- do i need to provide more?

Well, something that isn't a fallacy and is actually a sensibly thought out point would be nice.

 

[scifes]

plus being a straw man, comparing the bunch to god is a couple other fallacies;

god has as much evidence as unicorns--------[argument from ignorance+converse fallacy of accident]

god is like unicorns-------------[affirming the consequent]

unicorns don't exist-----------------[celestial tea pot]

hence..

god doesn't exist-------------[celestial kettle]

 

[scifes]

Certainly. What I'm going to have for breakfast, (outside of perhaps myself and my wife - although even I don't know right now). If you had 56 billion web hits saying I was going to have corn flakes and 30 thousand saying I'm going to have toast, you can't claim any more likelihood of truth simply because of the numbers, (argumentum ad populum).

the 56 million people are crazy?
are you listening to yourself?

Claim (2) on the other hand is verifiable, (show the Australian black swan), but isn't falsifiable, (if you see no black swan it could be because it just flew off down the road).

'god exists' is a (2) claim, (with the additional problem of probably not being verifiable either as theists would be the first to acknowledge that one cannot know if a god exists). However, it is a (2) claim on the basis that you can technically verify the existence of said god by presenting said god.

excellent, as you can see, i'm dealing with people who don't believe the austrailian black swan exists, although it's in my arms. actually i'm in a forum full of those people, and i've depleted my black swans which were all called white and me delusional,
so we can't agree on the true color of the swan,
so we go with the number of people who say it's white, and the number who say it's black,
the bigger number doesn't mean they're right, as maybe most people are delusional, but it's more reasonable to say that the majority are right.


other than that, (actually including that) you've been wasting my time and jumping around the subject, you have no concise thing to provide, but you've been provided a concise thing, head on wouldn't work, so you decide to wear me out by branching off the subject and introducing new cases and sub cases, i've played along enough now, and am going to stop running in loops with you..
sorry, and better luck next time.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

Er... Whether they're being "represented" [?] or not says nothing regarding their existence or non-existence.

don't be daft

If you weren't here to represent the existence of leprechauns (in a coy fashion of course), we wouldn't be having this discussion now

I have already pointed out that the purpose of the analogy is not to make a comparison between natures of claimed entities.

Really?
So the entire tirade from the IPU, FSM, cosmic teapot, leprechauns, et al makes no comparison to god ?

Why, this isn't relevant to us discussing what consitutes as 'evidence'.

It doesn't?
On the contrary, epistemology is the very sum and substance of evidence.

Once again, although you seemingly don't bother reading posts before responding from your notepad, is that nobody has argued that one does not do research and work in order to gather evidence.

Stop with the strawman.

Its simple.

If there is evidence, or a claim of it, and problems ensue (like the one we are having at the moment ... namely there is/isn't just as much evidence for god as there is for leprechauns), its epistemology, or who knows what and how, that takes the stage.

Even your own arguments about god's (apparently) fabled existence and how this shares a remarkable parraelell with leprechauns relies son this framework.

IOW you are already discussing an issue of application.
:shrug:

Actually I am asking that you and I sit down and come to an agreement of what exactly constitutes evidence.

I don't think that we have a disagreement on what defines evidence , but rather what the evidence defines

Seemingly you do not read posts before responding from your notepad. I have addressed it several times now and am more than happy to agree that doing research and work, (evidence gathering), is important - no, essential - in gathering evidence. Nobody wants to discuss evidence divorced from anything, stop with the strawman.

If that was the case, you would immediately cease from tying the claim of god as similar to the claim of leprechauns, since the work behind both claims is vastly different

Few things: (You'll need to clarify exactly what you mean by having 'an experience of something').

1. How many people need to have this 'experience'?

for the sake of discussion, at least one (or at least the allusion of it, in the case of a person being coy)

2. Must this 'experience' be reproducable on demand?

Depends who's making the demand and the parameters given as reproducible. For instance a great many reproducible experiences in physics tend to require several years of education ... and also the evidence of temperature becomes considerably easier to evidence with a thermometer, as opposed to a tape measure or mircrophone (which serve as excellent tools for evidencing other particular claims)

3. Must anyone else share this 'experience' when you have it?

for the sake of discussion, yes.
If you never (coyly) suggested that leprechauns exist (exist just like god) we wouldn't be having this discussion now

4. How do you determine that your brain interpreted the 'experience' accurately, or that the 'experience' was anything actually outside of your brain?

There are different means according to the nature of the experience and the nature of the seer.
IN a general sense though, the problem is solve by a body of educated/skilled persons dedicated to investigating the claim.

In a philosophical sense, the problem can also be addressed according to the three modes of nature (sattva, rajas and tamas) ... or there being several states of being which dictate the validity of experience (and some states being closer to the mark than others)

In a radical sense though, one could simply take the diametrically opposed view of blind faith - namely blind doubt. For instance one could go on ignoring the need for water until one drops dead since the sensation of burning thirst and fatigue can also be interpreted as mere mental states.

 

[SnakeLord]

the 56 million people are crazy?
are you listening to yourself?

Yes I'm 'listening' to myself whereas you unfortunately are not. Where did I call this 56 billion, (not million), crazy? Hmm?

How can we have a proper discussion if you make things up and/or just don't pay any attention?

i'm dealing with people who don't believe the austrailian black swan exists, although it's in my arms

It's in your arms is it heh? I suppose, as always, you can't provide any evidence that it's in your arms. With due respect, you're just waffling nonsense.

The rest of your paragraph completely ignores the point - descending off into some pointless realm.

sorry, and better luck next time

That pretty much explains it all. I understand you better now. Shame really.

----

If you weren't here to represent the existence of leprechauns (in a coy fashion of course), we wouldn't be having this discussion now

You're a smart boy. Unfortunately this isn't an argument to anything.

So the entire tirade from the IPU, FSM, cosmic teapot, leprechauns, et al makes no comparison to god ?

Oh my goodness, I addressed this dozens of posts ago. 1) You seemingly don't pay attention, 2) I hate repeating myself.

I think we'll just leave it here.

Wait, just out of interest before I leave: "IN a general sense though, the problem is solve by a body of educated/skilled persons dedicated to investigating the claim."

What do you mean exactly by "investigating"?

 

[iceaura]

i don't care about the 3 billion surnames gods have, i care about their first name, "god"..stop trying to twist my argument with your sub cases, who said anything about the existence of a certain deity name? no one,

You yourself separated out leprechauns for special analysis, comparing numbers of internet hits and drawing invalid conclusions.

god has as much evidence as unicorns--------[argument from ignorance+converse fallacy of accident]

god is like unicorns-------------[affirming the consequent]

unicorns don't exist-----------------[celestial tea pot]

hence..

god doesn't exist

That's not the argument for positive disbelief - that's the theist's strawman version.

Changed to make sense (without the mistaken labeling, such as "affirming the consequent" when such si not evident), that's part of the argument that there is no reason to believe in a given deity.

The argument that no deity exists involves other, further, evidence and reasoning.

feel free to indicate what point of vehicle construction you feel relies on a tentative argument

As I pointed out, the argument is irrelevant regardless of its certainty. You are avoiding the (apparently disturbing) comparison of cargo cult religion and resurrection cult religion.

Exactly. So the error is familiar to you, and you can correct it in your handling of cargo cult religion.
”
I wasn't aware that ship manufacturers are facing the same challenges as scientists researching in the field of abiogenesis

More irrelevance. The comparison was of human corpses with rusting hulls.

nOtherwise you would have no means to distinguish between a human projection of the natural world, as opposed to some other lesser world

Projections unto, not of, the natural world, are at issue. The projections were of human nature, not the natural world as distinct from human nature.

No.

See how easy it is to answer a question? Your turn.
”
unfortunately that doesn't explain why religion gets your bile secretions moving

There is no mystery here except why you respond with deflections and dissemblings - and now, as in the past, personal attacks. And that seems to be less and less of a mystery as the repetitions of your typical responses mount up.

 

[scifes]

alright, let me just clarify this:

Yes I'm 'listening' to myself whereas you unfortunately are not. Where did I call this 56 billion, (not million), crazy? Hmm?

you said that if 56 billion people say you're having pancakes (or whatever) for breakfast..
then..
it-and i'm checking your wording-:

you can't claim any more likelihood of truth simply because of the numbers

meaning, those 56 billion are crazy for saying that, right? they have no reason whatsoever to say it, right? they all woke up in the morning, connected to the internet and wanted to say something stupid and said you'll be having one kind of food or another, all 56 BILLION of them, said the same thing based on nothing, all of them said a senseless thing which was the same, can't we call them all crazy??? only then can we discard ALL they're opinions without meaning.

How can we have a proper discussion if you make things up and/or just don't pay any attention?

indeed how can we.. when i'm the one not paying attention.

 

[scifes]

iceaura, out of pure curiosity, why did you delete "celestial kettle" when you quoted me?

 

[lightgigantic]

As I pointed out, the argument is irrelevant regardless of its certainty.

Hardly.

Its issues of certainty that frame the validity of argument, which is why tentative arguments, or possible arguments, are somewhat lower of the wrung compared to necessary or even probable arguments.

You are avoiding the (apparently disturbing) comparison of cargo cult religion and resurrection cult religion.

You are ignoring that in the comparison, you have one article that can be thoroughly delineated in terms of its manufacture and existence and another, , life itself, that cannot be isolated outside of a few general symptoms. Perhaps the comparisons would be similar if all we knew about ships were that they appeared from some harbour and all we knew of their propulsion systems was an analysis of what they required for fuel, a few details of their emissions and no knowledge at all about their trade routes.

More irrelevance. The comparison was of human corpses with rusting hulls.

Actually the comparison is between the investment of life and ships. My point is that the degree of finality of knowledge i s not comparable, since we know so much about a ship (being the designer of it) and so little about life as it exists in an entity (since we are "of" it)). A designer can go to a ship graveyard and salvage a new vehicle from the parts. One cannot do the same (outside of the standard means of sexual reproduction, which is also surrounded by mystery) with even living entities, what to speak of deceased ones.

Projections unto, not of, the natural world, are at issue. The projections were of human nature, not the natural world as distinct from human nature.

That's my point.

You have this definition of the "natural world" running riot in your ideology which you haven't properly established as working outside of the framework of "human projection" ... or even that the theistic projection is working outside of it (since most of what we coin about life, is also working outside of it too ... although perhaps shrouded in the empirical rain cheque of " ... but one day we will know")

There is no mystery here except why you respond with deflections and dissemblings - and now, as in the past, personal attacks. And that seems to be less and less of a mystery as the repetitions of your typical responses mount up.

i thought it was quite straight forward.

We have two projections.
Both of them human.

If you accept that science is a human projection, why does coining theism as a human projection get you seething?

IOW YOUR issue is not about human projection.

:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

You're a smart boy. Unfortunately this isn't an argument to anything.

Sure it is.

Just try and indicate anything as real without representing it.

Oh my goodness, I addressed this dozens of posts ago. 1) You seemingly don't pay attention, 2) I hate repeating myself.

I think we'll just leave it here.

Actually you are fond of repeating yourself.

Usually you only cease when your errors become painfully obvious.

Wait, just out of interest before I leave: "IN a general sense though, the problem is solve by a body of educated/skilled persons dedicated to investigating the claim."

What do you mean exactly by "investigating"?

means the departure from theory into the realm of application.

Its what distinguishes a professional from an amateur.

 

[SnakeLord]

meaning, those 56 billion are crazy for saying that, right?

No. I don't quite see how you've equated "likelihood of truth" as meaning people are crazy. Kindly explain. Not 'crazy' but 'wrong'. What, never heard of people being wrong before? Or people being wrong somehow makes them crazy? What?

they have no reason whatsoever to say it, right?

Sorry, you've got me again. No reason? There's always reason - i.e they believe it to be so. Doesn't mean they're not wrong.

----

Usually you only cease when your errors become painfully obvious

I was going to avoid this inane waffle but I then considered that it might in fact be of use to me.

Now here's the thing, we both know that it isn't I but you who, well, seemingly everyone here considers to be devoid of good argument, the ability to answer questions or even stick the topic. I'm willing to take a vote, you already know the outcome. Of course this is where you say everyone else is wrong and for some reason it's just you out of everyone that even knows what you're talking about, (add quip about atheists in good old defensive fashion here).

Thing is, to the above you're going to - if the above isn't true - complain argumentum ad populum - hence completely making my point, thank you very much, have a nice day.

means the departure from theory

Yeesh... How exactly do you define 'theory'?

 

[lightgigantic]

I was going to avoid this inane waffle but I then considered that it might in fact be of use to me.

Now here's the thing, we both know that it isn't I but you who, well, seemingly everyone here considers to be devoid of good argument, the ability to answer questions or even stick the topic.

I'm willing to take a vote, you already know the outcome. Of course this is where you say everyone else is wrong and for some reason it's just you out of everyone that even knows what you're talking about, (add quip about atheists in good old defensive fashion here).

Thing is, to the above you're going to - if the above isn't true - complain argumentum ad populum - hence completely making my point, thank you very much, have a nice day.

Perhaps your analogy would be valid if you were taking a vote on who has the best argument with only one candidate

Yeesh... How exactly do you define 'theory'?

Simple knowledge of terminology and the relationship between them. If you've ever sent a car to the garage even though you can get a book all about fixing it, you know exactly what I mean

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

the departure from theory into the realm of application.

Its what distinguishes a professional from an amateur.

Bullshit! Would you accept a diagnosis of delusional from a trained psychiatrist? You never know who's reading & responding to these posts. I find this latest comment of yours extremely funny, better than some comedians You crack me up.

Walmart mechanics don't have quite the same know-how as the local grease monkey kid who lives at the other end of the street....he works cheap too.

 

[lightgigantic]

Bullshit! Would you accept a diagnosis of delusional from a trained psychiatrist?

perhaps I might, under a certain set of conditions, if I was convinced that they had my interests at heart

You never know who's reading & responding to these posts. I find this latest comment of yours extremely funny, better than some comedians You crack me up.

So what do you suggest?
Go hire professional advice just to tell them they're full of shit?
:crazy:

Walmart mechanics don't have quite the same know-how as the local grease monkey kid who lives at the other end of the street....he works cheap too.

now compare to your local green grocer or tax accountant and try and work out why some people take their cars to some persons to get fixed and not others
:shrug:

 

[iceaura]

Its issues of certainty that frame the validity of argument,

But not its relevance. As long as you misrepresent the beliefs of cargo cults, your dismissal of any parallels with resurrection cults remains without support - a classic strawman argument.

etc etc Actually the comparison is between the investment of life and ships etc etc

Gibberish.

You have this definition of the "natural world" running riot in your ideology which you haven't properly established as working outside of the framework of "human projection"

Gibberish.

Projections unto, not of, the natural world, are at issue. The projections were of human nature, not the natural world as distinct from human nature.
”
That's my point.

Your words argue otherwise, to the extent (small) that they argue anything. If that was your point, why did you say otherwise?

i thought it was quite straight forward.

I'm beginning to doubt that. You are too persistent in your approach, to be entirely unaware of what you are doing. Such as this delicate little misrepresentation:

If you accept that science is a human projection, why does coining theism as a human projection get you seething?

IOW YOUR issue is not about human projection.

The personal attack, the ascription of mood as irrelevant as it is inaccurate, is typical of your responses. The short answer to your question - you have yet to answer any of mine, we recall - is that it doesn't.

You now appear to have claimed to agree with me that deity is a projection of human nature on the natural world, and scientific theory is a projection of human nature on the natural world. Did you mean to do that?

iceaura, out of pure curiosity, why did you delete "celestial kettle" when you quoted me?

Because it was easy, at the tag end, to drop the irrelevancy to my reply - I was too lazy to delete the other irrelevancies in the middle.

 

[lightgigantic]

But not its relevance. As long as you misrepresent the beliefs of cargo cults, your dismissal of any parallels with resurrection cults remains without support .

Generally people don't support that understanding issues of life/death is on par with the production of trade vehicles

Gibberish. Gibberish.

hence the strawman persists
:shrug:

Your words argue otherwise, to the extent (small) that they indicate anything at all. If that was your point, why did you say the opposite? I'm beginning to doubt that. You are too persistent in your approach, to be entirely unaware of what you are doing.

Quite simply you've thought long and hard about "projection" but not "natural world", so your ascribing of one being within the natural world and one outside it is not a particularly convincing argument.

Such as this delicate little miserepresentation: The personal attack, the ascription of mood as irrelevant as it is inaccurate, is typical of your responses. The short answer to your question - you have yet to answer any of mine, we recall - is that it doesn't.

Oh puh-leez

Of course my "issue" is not "about human projection", and I think you know that.

Do you have any response to my actual posts, any of the questions you've been dodging, or anything else relevant to the OP?

well there is that persistent one I've been asking for the past several posts now, about exactly on what grounds do you estimate ship manufacture to be just as equitable as life/death ....
for some reason though, you feel its more profitable to discuss the altitude of your soap box

You now appear to have claimed to agree with me that deity is a projection of human nature on the natural world, and scientific theory is a projection of human nature on the natural world. Did you mean to do that?

err ... actually it was more about how your working model of the word "natural world" hasn't really been established outside of "human projection" ... so your assertions about what is or isn't included in the whole "natural world" package is meaningless

Because it was easy, at the tag end, to drop the irrelevancy to my reply - I was too lazy to delete the other irrelevancies in the middle.

I know

Your inability to address the argument reveals it.

 

[iceaura]

Generally people don't support that understanding issues of life/death is on par with the production of trade vehicles

Cargo cults are not thus. Strawman argument.

Quite simply you've thought long and hard about "projection" but not "natural world", so your ascribing of one being within the natural world and one outside it is not a particularly convincing argument.

I make no such ascriptions, or argument. Strawman.

well there is that persistent one I've been asking for the past several posts now, about exactly on what grounds do you estimate ship manufacture to be just as equitable as life/death .

Answered twice now. I don't. Strawman.

err ... actually it was more about how your working model of the word "natural world" hasn't really been established outside of "human projection" ... so your assertions about what is or isn't included in the whole "natural world" package is meaningless

I work from no such model, and I make no such assertions. Strawman.

The actual posts remain, above, should you wish to debate any issues relevant to my posts, your posts, or the OP. Try quoting, for starters.

Meanwhile, the extraordinary prevalence of strawman arguments in the postings of the theists on this forum is worth considering, as an adjunct to the OP. The most striking - because crudest and commonest - are the ones against Darwinian theory, in which bizarrely simplistic misapprehensions of evolutionary theory are set up as "science says" or "evolutionists claim" or the like.

Most of the debate over evolutionary theory's conflicts with deity are nothing but attempts to establish the actual theory in opposition to some strawman of it. Most of the other arguments involving a theist defending their theism likewise boil down to a theist telling their opponent what that opponent's argument is, getting it wrong, arguing against it in some manner dependent on the "error", and the opponent trying to restore their original argument for the next five pages.

 

[lightgigantic]

Cargo cults are not thus. Strawman argument.
I make no such ascriptions, or argument. Strawman.
Answered twice now. I don't. Strawman. I work from no such model, and I make no such assertions. Strawman.

the strawman within the strawman, huh?

The actual posts remain, above, should you wish to debate any issues relevant to my posts, your posts, or the OP. Try quoting, for starters.

well not really.
You state that cargo cultism is just as much a (deluded) projection as the notion of being resurrected after death.

You don't address the obvious fact that ship manufacture and trade routes are nowhere near as mysterious as life and how exists within an entity.

Perhaps your analogy would be valid if there was some sort of scientific means to invest life, much like there are scientific means to manufacture a boat and determine its trade route.

Meanwhile, the extraordinary prevalence of strawman arguments in the postings of the theists on this forum is worth considering, as an adjunct to the OP. The most striking - because crudest and commonest - are the ones against Darwinian theory, in which bizarrely simplistic misapprehensions of evolutionary theory are set up as "science says" or "evolutionists claim" or the like.

Most of the debate over evolutionary theory's conflicts with deity are nothing but attempts to establish the actual theory in opposition to some strawman of it. Most of the other arguments involving a theist defending their theism likewise boil down to a theist telling their opponent what that opponent's argument is, getting it wrong, arguing against it in some manner dependent on the "error", and the opponent trying to restore their original argument for the next five pages.

on the contrary

At the beginning of the twenty first century the situation remains very similar: for every atheistic scientist who supposes that science supports (or does not undermine) their atheism, there is a religiously inclined scientist who supposes that science supports (or does not undermine) their theism. Thus the atheist simplifies the very complicated and much contended question of the relationship between science and atheism/religion if they suppose that the evidence provided by the scientific study of the natural and social world unequivocally points to atheism. This is evident in each of the main branches of science, both natural and social, which have some relevance to the issue of the truth or falsity of atheism/religion.

IOW the strawman is yours, and yours alone buddy.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

perhaps I might, under a certain set of conditions, if I was convinced that they had my interests at heart

Looks like a shrink is one professional you might want to avoid.

So what do you suggest?
Go hire professional advice just to tell them they're full of shit?

So much for professionalism, especially when it doesn't suit your means. But perhaps you don't want to know the truth about yourself since you would have to put trust in the advisor, you know, the professional guy you adore so much.

now compare to your local green grocer or tax accountant and try and work out why some people take their cars to some persons to get fixed and not others

You obviously judge a book by its cover. I never thought for minute that you would adhere to stereotyping or prejudice but the world is full of surprises. You really should get out more. My investment guy is a retired factory worker & my mechanic is a self taught kid, both excellent and neither of which fit your description of the educated professional.