(December 24, 2015 at 5:35 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(December 24, 2015 at 12:15 am)Delicate Wrote: I don't think that's enough.

Someone can be unconvinced because they are irrational. Because they are prejudiced, or stubborn. Because they have an emotional commitment to their view that flies in the face of the evidence. They can be unconvinced because they are stupid or incompetent.

So it's not enough to say you are unconvinced. You have to show that you have made a reasonable attempt at examining purported evidence, and had good reasons for deeming them unconvincing.

Now THAT would be convincing. Can you do that?

There was a time when everybody believed in elves and fairies. This was the way the simple folk explained certain phenomena, flint arrow heads were "fairy shot" and sudden pains were caused by being shot by a fairy, that's why they are called "shooting pains". Belief in god is no different, it is a way for the feeble minded to explain things to themselves without actually finding out what actually is going on. What you are doing is using the medieval technique of having simplistic and vapid ideas for things and slapping your hands together and saying "that's that then god did it" you seem to see it as plus that you can hold on to such outmoded ideas when in fact it just shows you as being intellectually bankrupt. The answer to no question when properly investigated, has required a god or any other supernatural or paranormal explanation your position is only backed up by empty words that have been thought up by people trying to wish their stupid and delusional beliefs into being even a little likely and they all fail badly. I find unconvincing because they are not backed by actual evidence. I find them unconvincing because arguments can be made to support any position you want to take. I find them unconvincing because the thing they are trying to support is the most unlikely thing that I can imagine.

Your analogy fails. In trying to draw an analogy between shooting pains and God belief, you say it is a way for the feeble minded to explain things to themselves without actually finding out what actually is going on.

But we have no reason to believe this is true of either belief, even if the beliefs are wrong.

Your argument rests on a failed analogy.

Now do you see why I think atheists don't have good reasons for what they believe?

(December 24, 2015 at 12:53 pm)Cato Wrote:

(December 24, 2015 at 12:18 am)Delicate Wrote: Simply bleating "Hume's guillotine" is only marginally worse than simply bleating "is-ought".

I know precision of thought is not very popular here, but what, and how exactly, are you invoking the is-ought problem?

More evidence of what I described in my previous post. If anything, you are tenaciously consistent.

The fact that you are still hammering away at this, in light of the fact that someone else has already engaged you on the ought (your idealistic notion of moral perfection) juxtaposed to the is (morality as it is observed, discussed and practiced), is bizarre.

With this, I suppose I have earned another fine display of your petulant ignorance.

You misunderstand the conversation, as you are wont to do. The discussion there didn't try to bridge the is- ought gap. Rather both Dawkins and Christianity, in the context of that discussion, assumed there is no is-ought problem. Both assumed we have oughts.

The discussion was over whether Dawkins' knockoff morality made it worthwhile to try to do good. I argued it didn't.

So suffice to say, the is ought problem doesn't save Dawkins.

Like I said, bleating slogans is no substitute for understanding the discussion.

Now sit down.

Quote:Now do you see why I think atheists don't have good reasons for what they believe?

I believe many things. Just not in gods.

(December 24, 2015 at 3:27 pm)Delicate Wrote:

(December 24, 2015 at 5:35 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: There was a time when everybody believed in elves and fairies. This was the way the simple folk explained certain phenomena, flint arrow heads were "fairy shot" and sudden pains were caused by being shot by a fairy, that's why they are called "shooting pains". Belief in god is no different, it is a way for the feeble minded to explain things to themselves without actually finding out what actually is going on. What you are doing is using the medieval technique of having simplistic and vapid ideas for things and slapping your hands together and saying "that's that then god did it" you seem to see it as plus that you can hold on to such outmoded ideas when in fact it just shows you as being intellectually bankrupt. The answer to no question when properly investigated, has required a god or any other supernatural or paranormal explanation your position is only backed up by empty words that have been thought up by people trying to wish their stupid and delusional beliefs into being even a little likely and they all fail badly. I find unconvincing because they are not backed by actual evidence. I find them unconvincing because arguments can be made to support any position you want to take. I find them unconvincing because the thing they are trying to support is the most unlikely thing that I can imagine.

Your analogy fails. In trying to draw an analogy between shooting pains and God belief, you say it is a way for the feeble minded to explain things to themselves without actually finding out what actually is going on.

But we have no reason to believe this is true of either belief, even if the beliefs are wrong.

Your argument rests on a failed analogy.

Now do you see why I think atheists don't have good reasons for what they believe?

The medieval people had reasons to believe in the fairies and elves, why else would they believe. My analogy does fail despite your refusal to accept it. By the way not finding an argument convincing is a good reason to not believe it. If I failed to convince you that I used to be a popstar would you still be wrong to not believe I used to be a popstar? In your head you believe everything everyone ever tells you without any evidence. This is not how you operate or you would also believe in Shiva and all the other pantheon of gods around the world. You don't believe in them so why do you find it so hard to accept that we don't believe in your god OR all the others.

Delicate, you invoked the ought. Dolt.

(December 24, 2015 at 4:18 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(December 24, 2015 at 3:27 pm)Delicate Wrote: Your analogy fails. In trying to draw an analogy between shooting pains and God belief, you say it is a way for the feeble minded to explain things to themselves without actually finding out what actually is going on.

But we have no reason to believe this is true of either belief, even if the beliefs are wrong.

Your argument rests on a failed analogy.

Now do you see why I think atheists don't have good reasons for what they believe?

The medieval people had reasons to believe in the fairies and elves, why else would they believe. My analogy does fail despite your refusal to accept it. By the way not finding an argument convincing is a good reason to not believe it. If I failed to convince you that I used to be a popstar would you still be wrong to not believe I used to be a popstar? In your head you believe everything everyone ever tells you without any evidence. This is not how you operate or you would also believe in Shiva and all the other pantheon of gods around the world. You don't believe in them so why do you find it so hard to accept that we don't believe in your god OR all the others.

None of this gives us a reason to believe that the motivations behind shooting pains and God belief are as you say they are.

Once again, what is the evidence for this claim?

(December 24, 2015 at 4:27 pm)Delicate Wrote:

(December 24, 2015 at 4:18 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: The medieval people had reasons to believe in the fairies and elves, why else would they believe. My analogy does fail despite your refusal to accept it. By the way not finding an argument convincing is a good reason to not believe it. If I failed to convince you that I used to be a popstar would you still be wrong to not believe I used to be a popstar? In your head you believe everything everyone ever tells you without any evidence. This is not how you operate or you would also believe in Shiva and all the other pantheon of gods around the world. You don't believe in them so why do you find it so hard to accept that we don't believe in your god OR all the others.

None of this gives us a reason to believe that the motivations behind shooting pains and God belief are as you say they are.

Once again, what is the evidence for this claim?

I find it very interesting how people have repeatedly asked you questions, that when it's a question you don't like you ignore it completely, and then you accuse them of making a "claim". There is a difference between questioning your beliefs and making a claim to anything, and the importance of that difference is critical in any dialogue on anything. I somehow doubt that's really news to you, but it seems this may be - you aren't very slick about the way you feign ignorance on that, in fact it was very dodgy of you when you did that the first time, and the bogus factor grows exponentially every time you do that again!

On the question which you have most frequently avoided: Do you have any evidence for anything you've said here, or don't you?

In response to OP, I really liked The God Delusion, but when it comes to debates and overall informing the public of the atheistic POV and worldview I think that Sam Harris' exposition is the most succinct and concise.

Case in point, his debate with blabbermouth of the Divine Command Theory, William Lane Craig at Notre Dame.

(December 24, 2015 at 6:13 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(December 24, 2015 at 4:27 pm)Delicate Wrote: None of this gives us a reason to believe that the motivations behind shooting pains and God belief are as you say they are.

Once again, what is the evidence for this claim?

I find it very interesting how people have repeatedly asked you questions, that when it's a question you don't like you ignore it completely, and then you accuse them of making a "claim". There is a difference between questioning your beliefs and making a claim to anything, and the importance of that difference is critical in any dialogue on anything. I somehow doubt that's really news to you, but it seems this may be - you aren't very slick about the way you feign ignorance on that, in fact it was very dodgy of you when you did that the first time, and the bogus factor grows exponentially every time you do that again!

On the question which you have most frequently avoided: Do you have any evidence for anything you've said here, or don't you?

I've said it before. I'm one guy. I can only answer a certain number of posts. Most of the posts directed at me are deeply ignorant and don't deserve a response anyway.

If you really want me to answer your questions, there's a way to go about it. Give me a short number of substantive, rational questions, asked by people capable of rational discourse, and I'll address then.

Excitedpenguin asked me a long list of questions and was an exemplary interlocutor, and he seemed very happy with how directly and promptly I answered his questions.

So it's always an option. Just don't be a clown and you'll have all the answers you need.

(December 24, 2015 at 3:27 pm)Delicate Wrote:

(December 24, 2015 at 5:35 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: There was a time when everybody believed in elves and fairies. This was the way the simple folk explained certain phenomena, flint arrow heads were "fairy shot" and sudden pains were caused by being shot by a fairy, that's why they are called "shooting pains". Belief in god is no different, it is a way for the feeble minded to explain things to themselves without actually finding out what actually is going on. What you are doing is using the medieval technique of having simplistic and vapid ideas for things and slapping your hands together and saying "that's that then god did it" you seem to see it as plus that you can hold on to such outmoded ideas when in fact it just shows you as being intellectually bankrupt. The answer to no question when properly investigated, has required a god or any other supernatural or paranormal explanation your position is only backed up by empty words that have been thought up by people trying to wish their stupid and delusional beliefs into being even a little likely and they all fail badly. I find unconvincing because they are not backed by actual evidence. I find them unconvincing because arguments can be made to support any position you want to take. I find them unconvincing because the thing they are trying to support is the most unlikely thing that I can imagine.

Your analogy fails. In trying to draw an analogy between shooting pains and God belief, you say it is a way for the feeble minded to explain things to themselves without actually finding out what actually is going on.

But we have no reason to believe this is true of either belief, even if the beliefs are wrong.

Your argument rests on a failed analogy.

Now do you see why I think atheists don't have good reasons for what they believe?

Whether or not an analogy against religious beliefs is a good one doesn't give me any good reason to believe any religious claim which is unsupported by any evidence, and even less good reason why I should seriously consider anything you have said here.

Delicate:

• Atheists are indoctrinated 
     most of us (in the US at least) were not raised atheists, and there are no atheist indoctrination camps
  
• Atheists are emotionally invested in their beliefs
     no, but I am sickened with sadness to see how stupid and cruel religion has made people everywhere               
  
• Atheists are incompetent
     but they win most of the Nobel Prizes
  
• Atheists make unsupported claims 
     right, whatever you say!