Mageth

Because Christians tend to construct such fascinating strawmen and make so many other logical fallacies? (Such as the Natural Fallacy (Fallacy of Nature) you're making here....).

Mageth

Originally posted by Keith
Your reason-given duty? Who's reasoning do you base this on? God's, yours, the Democrats?

Mine, of course. Where's this God you supposedly attribute your duty to? I havent seen him around. And you have yet to produce him.

And I suspect you didn't recognize that I was parroting your "god-given duty" post....

How do you decide what is reasonable to lack belief in?

How do you decide what it's reasonable to believe in? Your answer should tell you something...

I think it’s reasonable to lack belief in things unsupported by evidence, just like you for the most part, I suppose. Do you think it's reasonable to believe in Thor, Apollo, Vishnu, Ra, leprechauns, Bigfoot, UFOs, and an infinite number of other things unsupported by evidence? If no, why not?

The difference between you and me is you seem to think it's reasonable to believe in "supernatural" things based on ancient mythical religious texts, which I don't.

Hitler thought it reasonable to commit mass-murder.

I will refer you to the Old Testament, in particular the book of Joshua.

So, again, who gets to set the standard for what is/isn't reasonable to believe?

Each person for themselves, naturally. Your question here makes it sound like you think we need someone to set the "standard" for what's reasonable to believe. I don't think it's a good idea for one person/being to dictate what's reasonable to believe for all. Look at the example you brought up - Nazi Germany.

Looking at the OT, the God described there is not a guide I think people should follow anyway - killing homosexuals, children that curse their parents, and sacking cities and killing the inhabitants with the possible exception of some young women for slaves.

And that's why the skeptical position and the scientific tools we've developed based on evidence are so valuable. They provide each of us with tools for evaluating claims to determine what is "reasonable" and what is not. Helps weed out the conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and other unfounded or just plain superstitious stuff from the things that are reasonable to believe.

Is superstition bad because you dislike it?

Superstition is not always harmful, but it is harmful often enough for me to say that superstition can be "bad".

Next time you get sick, go to the local Shaman. Superstition's not bad after all.

Why are hate-filled Abrahamic religions bad? Because you personally don't like them?

You can't be serious. Because they've spent centuries killing each other, not to mention the occasional indigent tribe, other religion they come across, or heretic in their own ranks, and that's continued until today, and looks like it’s going to continue. As long as we have two or more exclusive, often oppressive religions (e.g. Islam and Christianity) who have a tendency to kill each other over their differences, the world will not be at peace.

On top of that, you have that whole Hell bit. I think any belief system that thinks billions of people are going to be subjected to eternal suffering for not believing the particular way they do, not praying to the right name, is inherently bad.

I'm just trying to understand how, apart from God, you can make such judgements intelligible generally--as opposed to just yourself.

I highly doubt if I'm the only one that feels that way. And I would hope that my posts here are generally intelligible, what with God not helping me.

And I would bet that you think many other religions besides the particular one you happen to believe in are "bad". What's your take on Wicca or Satanism? Mormonism? Islam? Etc? Are those religions good or bad?

Who are you to say that certain things (such as certain religions) are "bad" for "the world today"?

Thankfully, I live in a country where I can say such things. If I was a citizen in many strict religious countries, saying that could get me in serious trouble. (And your "Who are you to say..." along with the implication that you think we need someone (God, presumably, or his self-appointed spokespersons) to tell us what’s reasonable to believe makes it sound like you might not object if the U.S. (or God or his representatives) did something about my lack of belief...)

Keith

The reason I asked, "who are you to say", is to show that without God, you can either believe what... A) seems reasonable to you, or B) follow the consensus of a certain crowd, group, culture etc. as to what they think is reasonable. I personally don't have any desire to live in a country where you would not be free to express your lack of beliefs.

Keith

No, I do not think it is reasonable to believe in Thor, Apollo, Vishnu, Ra, leprechauns, bigfoot, or UFO's. You're right, they are not supported by evidence.

Keith

Who do you think wrote the books of the bible, and why was it written? Do you think the ancient texts are mythical or have we any reason to think some of them are real?

Keith

Keith: "So, again, who gets to set the standard for what is/isn't reasonable to believe?"

Mageth: "Each person for themselves, naturally."

Keith: "Why are hate-filled Abrahamic religions bad? Because you personally don't like them?"

Mageth: "You can't be serious. Because they've spent centuries killing each other, not to mention the occasional indigent tribe, other religion they come across, or heretic in their own ranks, and that's continued until today, and looks like it’s going to continue. As long as we have two or more exclusive, often oppressive religions (e.g. Islam and Christianity) who have a tendency to kill each other over their differences, the world will not be at peace."

Keith's response:

If Nature has no Purpose, what is "bad" or "wrong" with the world not being at peace, and in what sense is this bad or wrong?

It seems that on your world view, it must be completely natural for human beings to rape and kill each other, make war, impose slavery, and so forth. If these things are just natural for humans to do, then it seems that your standard, which says... "each person for themselves, naturally"... is just advocating amorality and complete arbitrariness--embracing the status quo, instead of offering any kind of reasoned moral objection to what is morally wrong, or even telling us what is morally wrong, and why it is wrong.

Mageth

Originally posted by Keith
The reason I asked, "who are you to say", is to show that without God, you can either believe what... A) seems reasonable to you, or B) follow the consensus of a certain crowd, group, culture etc. as to what they think is reasonable.

Yeah, but what's wrong with believing what seems reasonable to me? (You can get into trouble by following the consensus of a group, I reckon).

I personally don't have any desire to live in a country where you would not be free to express your lack of beliefs.

I'm glad you cleared that up. But it still sounds like you think we need God to tell us what it's reasonable to believe.

Mageth

Originally posted by Keith
No, I do not think it is reasonable to believe in Thor, Apollo, Vishnu, Ra, leprechauns, bigfoot, or UFO's. You're right, they are not supported by evidence.

Well, there you go. I have the Christian God on my list of things not supported by evidence. We're not so different after all on how we determine what it's reasonable to believe in, are we?

Mageth

Originally posted by Keith
Who do you think wrote the books of the bible,

Men.

and why was it written?

Which book? A variety of reasons, I would imagine. Parts of the OT (e.g., Genesis) may have been written at least partially to justify the actions of a rather viscious tribe in Canaan that allegedly treated their neighbors quite harshly. You know, OUR god is the one true god, he GAVE our father Abraham this land; that justifies our slaughter of you and your children, you evil idol-worshippers!

Do you think the ancient texts are mythical or have we any reason to think some of them are real?

Assuming we're talking about the Bible, the Bible is a mixture of myths (most if not all of Genesis, including the creation and flood accounts, many of which were obviously adapted from other, older religions and myths such as Sumerian myths and Zoroastrianism), legends (a legend being a story that may have some basis in real characters and/or events, but that has been enhanced, often with common mythological motifs found in other mythologies; Moses may be a legend or purely mythical; much of the story of David is almost certainly legendary; and there's quite a legend built up around Jesus, if such a man really existed), and some actual history (e.g., the Israelites were really held captive in Babylon), even though that often has legendary material added to it.

There's so much myth and legend mixed in with what reality may be there that it's impossible to say for sure just which accounts in the bible may actually be real.

Queen of Swords

Keith, please answer my question :

Do you think that when religious people proselytize, atheists should give in and agree to accept that particular religion? Or should we just keep silent?