///The atheist says in his heart, there is no God.
Jan.
Very few atheists say that & of those, most say it only in direct response to the unsupported claim that there is a god. You know that.
<>
///The atheist says in his heart, there is no God.
Jan.
///In your closet theist dreams pal,
Jan.
I've proven what I set out to prove: You've failed to understand your own question. Yet again.Thanks for proving me right. Yet again.
The atheist says in his heart, there is no God.
Jan.
delusions
///Ticked like, mainly for that word, which equals the remainder of the post
Love it when people don't pussy foot around and call it like it is
Are you saying I am wrong?I think that is something you have to say.
Strike "accept" and you're stating a definition.The only difference between an atheist, and a theist is that one does not accept or believe in God.
Replace "accept" by "believe" and you're right.Theists accept that everything emanates from God, including existence.
So theist or atheist doesn't come into it, then?People with good, basic, human intelligence, have good morals. At least in my experience.
Does atheism "taint" intelligence, in your opinion?When that intelligence become tainted, or clouded, their morals also run the risk of becoming tainted, or clouded.
Human beings tend to have a social heirarchy, like the other apes. I agree.''Higher authority'' exists in every society. Even gangster society.
''Higher authority'' is a natural tenet of every society.
Then what's wrong with human moral systems, compared to God's moral system (whatever that might be)?One does not feel a need for ''higher authority'' when it comes to anything.
I've read what many theists say about morality, and formed my views on that basis. How about you?How have you reached this conclusion?
The vast majority of them do. You're in a minority there, Jan.The theist does not comprehend God as a separate entity.
I see. You're willing to overlook the errors that those other theists make, because at least they are theists. The real enemy is the atheists?It's not about whether or not you share my belief. There are many theists who don't share my belief, but they are theist because they accept and believer in God.
Oh no, I have reasons. The main one is the total lack of evidence for God. I'm hoping you have some, though. I'm willing to change my mind, I assure you. I've started a thread on the topic.You are in denial about God, period. You don't accept God (for whatever reason), and you have no reason for it.
Do you ask that question objectively or subjectively?Why do I need to examine my belief in God?
Whether you choose to take a long, honest, look at your own beliefs, in the end, has nothing to do with me.Because you don't accept God?
Or, it might be indicative of the psychological state of theists of your ilk. That is, one in which the definition of God is deliberately kept nebulous, so that it leaves you free to complain that no definition of God used by atheists is satisfactory. Nothing meets your criteria, therefore no atheist is ever talking about God "properly".I'm not saying I can't be defeated, but if you or any atheist on here are going to defeat me on the topic of theism, you have to start with a proper, satisfactory, thought out explanation, or definition of God. So far no one can even bring themselves to define, or describe God to the satisfaction of any theist. Such is the psychological state of the modern atheist.
Exactly. You can give a definition of God, Jan can call you an ignorant atheist and quibble about your definition, and the conversation is effectively derailed.I see it as an evasive tactic. If the definition of God is never locked down, then endless time can be wasted discussing possible definitions.
Exactly. You can give a definition of God, Jan can call you an ignorant atheist and quibble about your definition, and the conversation is effectively derailed.
I have noticed different approaches by the theists on this group to arguments. Jan tends to try to derail any argument he is losing. If he is kept on track eventually he just stops posting and starts another thread. Musika gets more and more condescending and arrogant until all content is gone, and it becomes a stream of thinly disguised personal attacks. I have yet to meet a theist here who can carry on a discussion without trying to deflect, distract or just plain run from the topic. (With the possible exception of Bowser; he has managed to remain fairly civil and rational even when he disagrees and eventually disengages.)
I agree. Jan tends to lose focus and continually drifts back to his favorite talking points ("you are an atheist so for you there is no God" etc.) Musika tends to preach about how his opponents lack the requisite qualifications to discuss things with him.I have noticed different approaches by the theists on this group to arguments. Jan tends to try to derail any argument he is losing. If he is kept on track eventually he just stops posting and starts another thread. Musika gets more and more condescending and arrogant until all content is gone, and it becomes a stream of thinly disguised personal attacks.
You have made a couple of small changes that alter my posting - that is no quote of mine.The reason that conversations between iceaura and Musika typically go nowhere is that both of them spend all their time painting caricatures of the other ("Abrahamic theists always ....", "Atheists can't talk about God because they lack the requisite education about God...") and accusing each other of posting in bad faith.
And speculated about:The constrast between what we typically see here and the real-world discussions I have with reasonable, thoughtful theists, is quite striking.
There is another context, besides personal psychology, one might explore: the political leverage of fundies in the US, and the role of repetitive personal attack in fascist propaganda. The Jans and Musikas of the real world just elected a President, in no small part by attacking intellectual authority - especially scientific.I'm really not sure what the theists are afraid of. It's not like the big bad atheists are ever going to be able to prove that their gods aren't real.
It wasn't intended as a direct quote. Sorry if it came across as such.You have made a couple of small changes that alter my posting - that is no quote of mine.
billvon,
I agree. Jan tends to lose focus and continually drifts back to his favorite talking points ("you are an atheist so for you there is no God" etc.) Musika tends to preach about how his opponents lack the requisite qualifications to discuss things with him.
The reason that conversations between iceaura and Musika typically go nowhere is that both of them spend all their time painting caricatures of the other ("Abrahamic theists always ....", "Atheists can't talk about God because they lack the requisite education about God...") and accusing each other of posting in bad faith.
What is missing from Jan and Musika, consistently, is on-topic content. I think they view discussions mostly as a kind of verbal sparring match, rather than being interested in any honest exchange of ideas and opinions. Probably what I find most annoying is their inability to answer direct questions with actual answers. Instead, over and over, we see questions answered with questions, distraction or evasion - including the ever-useful cop-out of "I've already told you. Go look for where I answered you previously, because I'm not going to repeat myself, or point you to where I answered the question."
I don't know whether the behaviour we see is typical of the kind of theist who likes engaging in these kinds of debates on internet forums, or whether it is more of a specific defence mechanism used by theists who feel out of their depth on a science forum. I am aware that the theists here are probably in the minority, but it still surprises me that they are so unwilling to say what they actually believe. It's almost like they are constantly apologising for holding their beliefs, instead of proudly displaying them. Or, perhaps more likely, they are aware of the vulnerabilities in their beliefs and so they try to present what they regard as the smallest possible target.
I get the impression that they regard it is a "win" if they can shift the focus away from their own specific beliefs, or from the particulars of theistic belief in general, and instead make the discussion a battle of personalities - especially exposing the know-nothing atheists for what they believe them to be.
The constrast between what we typically see here and the real-world discussions I have with reasonable, thoughtful theists, is quite striking. In the real world, I find that theists are usually happy to talk about their beliefs and stand up for them, while admitting that they don't have all the answers. They are also usually quite happy to explain exactly what it is that they believe, and their reasons for the belief. But here, things are very different. The theists won't tell us what they believe, except in the most superficial way. Their attitude at the start of conversation is not one of sharing, but rather of putting up a wall to defend against expected assaults on the belief. At times, reading between the lines, they seem almost ashamed to hold the belief, so that they feel like they have to hide it away. And they never admit that they don't have all the answers; on the contrary, they tell us directly that they know all the answers already. But how they know is a closely-kept secret, never to be revealed.
I'm really not sure what the theists are afraid of. It's not like the big bad atheists are ever going to be able to prove that their gods aren't real. So maybe it's more a case of their not wanting to examine the reasons for their own beliefs too closely, because they are too fragile to withstand the challenge. Or something like that.
Definitely. The theists I know are pretty candid about their beliefs; a common one is (to summarize) "Yeah, I'm not sure that I believe that the communion wafer actually turns into the flesh of Christ, but it seems like a pretty meaningful ceremony so I don't have an issue participating in it - because it's really supporting this church I like." They maintain a willing suspension of disbelief on issues of the supernatural to reap the benefits of membership in a religious community, and they realize that not everything in their religion makes sense. And I can respect that.The constrast between what we typically see here and the real-world discussions I have with reasonable, thoughtful theists, is quite striking. In the real world, I find that theists are usually happy to talk about their beliefs and stand up for them, while admitting that they don't have all the answers. They are also usually quite happy to explain exactly what it is that they believe, and their reasons for the belief. But here, things are very different. The theists won't tell us what they believe, except in the most superficial way. Their attitude at the start of conversation is not one of sharing, but rather of putting up a wall to defend against expected assaults on the belief. At times, reading between the lines, they seem almost ashamed to hold the belief, so that they feel like they have to hide it away. And they never admit that they don't have all the answers; on the contrary, they tell us directly that they know all the answers already. But how they know is a closely-kept secret, never to be revealed.
It is also false as a paraphrase, or representation - and the claim it supports (that I am dealing in caricatures) is thereby unsupported.It wasn't intended as a direct quote. Sorry if it came across as such
This thread is not about the argument itself. It is explicitly about the reasons for holding the beliefs, and the approaches adopted when attempting to defend the beliefs, and the psychological precursors to both of those things."Bulverism is a logical fallacy in which one party simply assumes that the other party is wrong and explains their reasons for wanting to believe it rather than addressing the argument itself.
Me too.Definitely. The theists I know are pretty candid about their beliefs; a common one is (to summarize) "Yeah, I'm not sure that I believe that the communion wafer actually turns into the flesh of Christ, but it seems like a pretty meaningful ceremony so I don't have an issue participating in it - because it's really supporting this church I like." They maintain a willing suspension of disbelief on issues of the supernatural to reap the benefits of membership in a religious community, and they realize that not everything in their religion makes sense. And I can respect that.
Scientists and engineers love to pull things apart to find out how they work. But a lot of people aren't worried, as long as things "work" well enough.Part of the problem people run into here, I think, is the engineering/scientific mindset; if an engineer or a scientist sees a burning bush that isn't consumed they are going to want to understand it - take clippings of it, run independent tests, get an infrared camera.
Equally, I don't mind the theists who say "Look, nobody knows the answers to this (yet), but I choose to believe that God is involved", or similar - provided that they are talking about something for which the statement that "nobody knows" is true. After all, we don't know what we don't know. It's okay not to know everything right now.And so once a theist says something like that to me - "Look, I know it doesn't make complete sense, but it's important to me to believe it" - I am fine with that.
What really irks me are the theists who say "Look, the reason you don't understand is that you're an idiot - because I believe it and I'm not an idiot." And unfortunately we have a lot of them here.
Ah. Then only atheists are capable of understanding science, specifically cosmology, astronomy, geology, paleontology and biology. Unlike theists, they do not deny and reject science.
Now that that's settled . . .