Doubting Didymus

Bzzzt. Argumentum ad populum. Sorry, try again. Do you have any real reasons why we should be agnostic toward god but be certain of the non-existance of santa, or is this it? Lots of people believe it, so it must be true?

Devilnaut

ICB:

I don't understand this question. Do atheists regard it as "mythical"? Myths are ancient fictional legends. I don't see how a super race of aliens who created the universe could in any way be called a myth, as there are no such legends (at least not to my knowledge).

Do you mean, do I (as an atheist) dismiss the possibility of this offhand? Well, no, but I don't dismiss any "God" possibilities prematurely either. Could you clarify this question?

Edit to add:

ICB:
Are you serious, that you couldn't see the flaw in his reasoning that Didymus pointed out??

[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

tommyc

Yep, gotta go with Didymus here.

On a sideline, I love the "incorrect quiz show buzzer noise" piss takes people use on this site. "bzzzt" is a good one, but my favourite has to be Koy's:

Aiiiirnt!

More of a siren than a buzzer, though probably best to be only used for blatant logical fallacies.

Koyaanisqatsi

Boy am I tired of this horseshit!

Let's get this straight. The minute any jackass with a pen makes up a character in a myth, the rest of the world has to either prove it doesn't exist (a logical impossibility) or simply acquiesce to an "I don't know if it exists or not" default?

Fictional characters do not factually exist. If you have compelling evidence to support anything that would contradict that extant, tautological fact, then present it or end of f*cking story.

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

It is, to be sure, insulting to small children. I suggest that, instead, we compare theists to, perhaps:

• the 52% who believe in Astrology
• the 46% who believe in ESP
• the 19% who believe in Witches
• the 22% who believe that Aliens have landed on Earth
• the 33% who believe in the lost continent of Atlantis
• the 41% who believe that Dinosaurs and Humans lived Simultaneously
• the 65% who believe in Noah's flood
• the 35% who believe in Ghosts
• the 67% who believe that they Actually Had a Psychic Experience

not to mention those who believe in "Dowsing, the Bermuda triangle, poltergeists. biorhythms, creationism, levitation, psychokinesis, astrology, ghosts, psychic detectives, UFOs, remote viewing, Kirlian auras, emotions in plants. life after death, monsters, graphology, cryptozoology, clairvoyance. mediums, pyramid power, faith healing, Big Foot, psychic prospecting, haunted houses, perpetual motion machines, antigravity locations, and, amusingly, astrological birth control." (<a href="http://www.physics.hku.hk/~tboyce/ss/topics/hope.html" target="_blank">by This Account</a> - RD) Clearly, no unaided child would stoop so low.

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

Actually, they are identical.

Who only believe he is real because authority figures (i.e., parents and society) tell them he is real, which is identical to God.

And what would that prove? Many many people believed that Santa was real based upon what they were told and read and saw on TV, yet he wasn't. It was all a big sham, just like theism.

Many many people believe Hitler was doing the "right thing" (both in Germany and throughout the world, I should add) including a tremendous amount of christian cult members.

Does mass "belief" have any legitimate meaning? If so, then Buddah is the only truth there is, since the majority of the poeple on this planet believe in him.

You're right, since the more applicable comparison would be with any of the ancillary characters from the novel 1984.

No, they are angered because it's the truth and they are conditioned against hearing the truth; to respond in this manner like one of Pavlov's dogs. But that isn't the fault of the messenger's; that's the fault of those who conditioned the theist.

"Hate the sin, not the sinner" is my motto.

One can only "belittle" somebody if that person has a legitimate position to ridicule. Correctly pointing out all of the lies and fallacies that somebody believes are true in spite of the evidence to the contrary or lack of evidence to support their beliefs is nothing more than telling the truth.

If said person can't handle seeing their beliefs shown for what they are, then they should either no longer hold such beliefs or not come here, yes?

Hate the sin, not the sinner.

Well, ironically, the fact that you consider yourself a deist does offend me to some degree--at least my sensibilities and intellect as well as my hopes for humanity in general, since another deist could mean that you are just another cognitively dissonant mind polluting our collective subconscious, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

So where does that leave us?

I shall and welcome! Free thinking reigns supreme here, my friend, so if you are easily offended or do consider the truth to be "patronizing," I'd grow some thicker skin.

XMagickaX

Hello Koyaanisqatsi,


Thank you for replying to my post! I have a few things I would like to discuss with you.

Hmm...speak for yourself, but I, growing up was never told by authority figures that God was my magical Sky-Daddy who would always take care of me. I came to terms with the existence of a supreme being on my own terms. I suspect many other people would have the same story if you would give them a chance to tell it.

I agree that many apsects of theism are quite rediculous, however you paint your portrait of believers of any type, far too widely.

Again, comparing a believers response to a dog used in pavlov's experiment(a horribly flawed analogy, seeing as how pavlovs' dogs were conditioned to respond only to certain sounds and sights, than salivate, IIRC)is a very demeaning way to communicate with people.

Who gave you the Monopoly on the truth?

Not every Theist is a conditioned zombie, no matter how much you really want them to be.

When is there ever a proper time for a mature adult to belittle a fellow human being for what he happens to hold as his beliefs? After I got out of Junior High, we stopped doing that.

Actually, it is something more, it is being degrading and rude, when it may not be necessary.

Being shown what they are according to you, may not have the impact you so desire. Lead by example, instead of being so millitant. You may be surprised at the results.

Well you've managed to keep from being "polluted" like everyone else so far havent you?

This is incredible act of benevolence has been duly noted.

As does with me. I wouldnt have it any other way.

I am not offended easily...even less so by impersonal internet bulletin board systems. I can't speak for everyone but, you know.

Thanks again for the response!

Doubting Didymus

Dear magicka.

Do you actually have anything to say about the agnostic/atheist/theist argument? So far, you have not actually advanced a logical position of any kind. (I am still assuming that you weren't seriously relying on the argumentum ad populum).

If your purpose here is to try to get atheists to be less rude, then I suggest you start small and work your way up to Koyaanisqatsi rather than trying to take on Koyaanisqatsi's impoliteness directly, which may be like holding the ocean back with a towel. (New York is, after all, a helluva town )

Also, you may wish to examine the rudeness and belittlement that comes from theists before you make a judgement on us.

Reasonabledoubt: I do not think that paranormalists make the best analogy with theists, as paranormalists are at least concerned with evidence, (dubious or anecdotal though it may be), while most theists specifically deny the need to prove their position. It is because of this that santa and the tooth fairy really are appropriate analogies, as blind faith is the main factor in the belief system. (Who here was told as a child that santa wouldn't come if you don't believe he will? I certainly was. Anyone playing spot the analogy yet?)

Also, for tommyc: Arooga!

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: Doubting Didymus ]</p>

XMagickaX

I just want to say before I address the rest of your post, that in no way do I mean to judge anyone. I am no one to do this. If I come off that way, please call me on it.

Oh I have many things to say!

No I wasnt relying on that argument. Just becuase it's popular does not mean it's right, obviously.

But you have to at least consider the fact that not everyone believes in God becuase they were told to, or because everyone else does! Many people are often times guilty of associating their own experiences with those of others. Just becuase I went through it, or did it a certain way, doesnt mean that everyone else did too.

Many atheists tell me that the reason they are so bitter about God and christianity is because they had it shoved down their throats at a young age. I think this is in direct correlation with the comparison of santa and God. They are both associated with childhood and discarded together as fantasy and nothing more...You have to remember, some people came to God on their own terms, much like how you left on your own terms!

I'll add more as I think of it...untill then!



[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: XMagickaX ]</p>

ybnormal

Of course we do...

from a believer's perspective, it's entirely possible, if not probable, that he already has 100% of the evidence FOR the existence of a ?god, that he'll expect to see in his natural life...

from his perspective, only upon death will he possibly/probably gain more evidence... so, unless you're bringing in afterlife knowledge, you probably already have ALL the available evidence... that should constitute "enough"

from a nonbeliever's perspective of course, there is no ?god, so he already has ALL the available "evidence"... that too constitutes "enough"

from a believer's perspective, if what he has now, ain't "enough", then his question should be, considering the past 2000 years, what new evidence does he logically expect to surface, before he dies?

I have "enough", for my lifetime... what else could possibly matter?

We all know enough to decide...

I say, decide!