(January 20, 2017 at 12:54 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Oh, and calling me insecure was insulting as well, but what can you do.

My original post today wasn't aimed at anyone in particular, just my idea. You jumped into the shoe, Cinderella.

What else do you feel offended about? Should we start making a list?

(January 17, 2017 at 5:43 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: [quote='downbeatplumb' pid='1488637' dateline='1484677221']
In order for a supernatural causation to be considered, supernatural has to be proved to be a thing.
We know that things occur by natural processes, so this would be the most, and at this stage, only logical possible solution.
My beliefs are based on what can be proven, your faith is despite what can be proven.
Get the difference.

*emphasis mine*



Belief and faith are synonymous, there is no difference...

Quote:belief

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/belief


1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.

3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.

4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith:  

Well no actually.


 

Quote: 
Definition of belief
1
:  a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing <her belief in God> <a belief in democracy> <I bought the table in the belief that it was an antique.> <contrary to popular belief>
2
:  something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion :  something believed <an individual's religious or political beliefs>; especially :  a tenet or body of tenets held by a group <the beliefs of the Catholic Church>
3
:  conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence <belief in the validity of scientific statements>

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief

look at definition number 3.

"I believe my wife is in the kitchen" makes sense when I can see her in there

"I have faith that my wife is in the kitchen" is a statement that makes no sense when you can see her do it.

(January 20, 2017 at 12:53 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(January 20, 2017 at 12:46 pm)Jesster Wrote: I said 50,000 times that my comparison of your beliefs to the tooth fairy was not meant as an insult. You took it as an insult, but that's not my problem.

It doesn't matter what you intended. What matters it that is is an insult. Both CL and I have explained to you why it is insulting and yet you persist. It's like accidentally saying to an African-Amercian that you are surprised at how well-spoken they are, being informed that it is condescending, but then continuing to say it anyway...because you don't mean it that way. It is your problem.

Just because you're insulted doesn't make it insulting, it just makes you overly sensitive.  Nobody can insult you against your will.  I couldn't insult you if I tried, you can just refuse to take it as an insult.

But you don't.  You're just being emotional.  I find that, and your idiotic religion, laughable.

(January 20, 2017 at 12:53 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(January 20, 2017 at 12:46 pm)Jesster Wrote: I said 50,000 times that my comparison of your beliefs to the tooth fairy was not meant as an insult. You took it as an insult, but that's not my problem.

It doesn't matter what you intended. What matters it that is is an insult. Both CL and I have explained to you why it is insulting and yet you persist. It's like accidentally saying to an African-Amercian that you are surprised at how well-spoken they are, being informed that it is condescending, but then continuing to say it anyway...because you don't mean it that way. It is your problem.

No. That is your interpretation of what she said.

Learn this if nothing else....

People are only responsible for what they say, not how others choose to understand it.

(January 20, 2017 at 12:39 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Perhaps it would help it I gave an example of what would be a fair comparison to God, namely Truth. Consider the following two propositions:

P1: The tooth fairy exists.
P2: Truth exists.

In one trivial respect some smartasses could claim that neither of the proposition’s subject has sufficient empirical evidence to justify belief in it. I challenge these Champions of Reason to justify their self-conceit of being Truthseekers without tangible falsifiable evidence that Truth exists. If there was a tooth fairy, someone could at least, in theory, set a pair of dentures on a mousetrap and catch one. Not so with truth. If truth exists then it isn’t just another thing in a universe full of things. Has anyone seen truth? Distilled it into a test-tube? It’s not even reasonable to suggest that belief in truth is justified only after a sample has been produced under controlled conditions. Truth cannot be isolated. Either it informs everything or it doesn’t. Any comparison between the existence of the tooth fairy and truth is a ludicrous and obvious category error. I question the intellectual integrity of those who deny it.

That is really a horrible example. Where to even begin? First of all, no, you couldn't catch the Tooth Fairy in that way. You don't get money for dentures, just baby teeth. She would see the mouse trap. She's a creepy tooth-collecting weirdo, not a wild, mindless animal. And even if you did devise the perfect physical trap she would just use her magic to avoid it or get out of it.

Or maybe I could put it into magical terms you are more familiar with. The Tooth Fairy is always watching. She knows your mind and whether you're being good or bad. She has a big book, a book of your life, a kind of "Book of Life", you might say, in which she writes down every time you wank it while thinking about your neighbor's boobies. She would see such a trap coming a mile away and easily avoid it.

As for those two propositions being on equal ground, not even close. I CAN justify, WITH tangible, falsifiable evidence that truth exists. I can do so by simply not telling a lie. I can do so repeatedly, at will. Can I prove it to YOU? Not so easily. But I can prove it to ME. It would not take unsubstantiated belief for me to believe in truth. I would not have to make complicated logical arguments to convince myself, or lower the bar for evidence. This is not so with the Tooth Fairy. You're comparing magical beliefs to mundane beliefs. The two are just not on equal footing

(January 20, 2017 at 12:39 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I take that back. I don’t question it. They dishonest. Why is it that skeptics compare the existence of God to fairies, unicorns, and other fantastic mythological beasts as opposed to the existence of things like truth or personal identity or Platonic Forms or moral principles? I will tell you why. Because their only intention is to make believers seem ridiculous. Douches.

That is sometimes, perhaps even often the case. It is not always the case. I actually see ALL magical beliefs as being equally ridiculous. Sometimes I'm just expressing that point.

And something a little funny for you, just now YOU were the "douchebag" by your own definition. Unicorns are mentioned in the Bible. There are Christians who believe they were actual, real, now extinct creatures. But YOU just lumped that belief in with belief in fairies. YOU just compared the beliefs some Christians hold to belief in fairies without missing a beat. Like I said, sometimes it is intentionally mocking, but not always. I am relatively sure you didn't just intentionally do what you are arguing against for the express purpose of insulting Christians who hold different beliefs as you. If you didn't then the point is soundly proved. It is not always intentional

(January 20, 2017 at 12:39 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Now it is fine to say that you don’t accept the various logical demonstrations, cosmological arguments, fine-tuning, or design inferences. Let’s have those discussions, but the tooth fairy comparison is just a rhetorical quip whose only purpose is to infantilize and avoid serious philosophical problems. With respect to the human condition, it doesn’t matter one whit whether the tooth fairy exists. But whether or not God exists (or Truth for that matter) has far and wide ranging implications from the problem of universal to the nature of personal identity to moral values. The slightly more reasonable skeptics will say that God is so vague of a concept is to be meaningless. Really? The Christian God has been defined in exhaustive detail by the Church Doctors - Augustine, Anslem, and Thomas Aquinas for a start. So has its more general predecessor, the so-called God of the Philosophers, more broadly defined by Aristotle, Plotinus, etc. Vague? No, you're just lazy.

The Christian God has been defined to death, yes, but by about 38,000 different Christian faiths along with likely at least several million individual personal beliefs, many of those beliefs in stark opposition to each other. This adds considerable ambiguity to the notion of exactly what God is, which in turn makes the definition once again "vague". Even people within a particular faith often don't agree on the particulars of God. I remember one conversation between two Catholics over whether Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus or not. One was adamant that she remained "pure" her entire life. The other argued that her "purity" no longer mattered after the fact, she just had to be a pure vessel until the Christ was born.

And those who do go for a more definitive, less vague description are often just making it up. When asked for specifics they spout off personal belief, often (especially among Catholics, in my experience) in opposition to the position of their very religious organization.

There is no universally accepted description of God which is not, by necessity, vague. Hell, people of some faiths don't even accept that people of other, similar faiths are even worshiping the same God as them. You can't point me to a book or definition which lays out a well-defined notion of what God is and is not which is actually accepted by even a majority of the people who believe in him. Even the terms used to describe him are vague. He is "perfect". In what way? In ALL ways. Ways like? And then you start naming off things at odds with things in the Bible. He is a jealous God, for example. How is that perfect? Jealousy is considered one of the pettiest of human emotions. Hell, there's even a logical argument about a "maximally great being" which never actually describes what is and is not "great". It just says, essentially, "Everything which is great, he has the greatest of it." He has jealously by his own words. So me must be the MOST jealous thing in all of existence. How is that "great" in any way?

When you say he is well defined and you name off people who defined him, you're talking explicitly about sources that you, personally, accept. Not all Christians would accept those same sources in their entirety. So once again it is YOU who gets to decide what is offensive and what is not, what God is and what he is not, what is real and what is not. Your argument is essentially, "You can't even prove truth exists, so if you want to know what to believe, just ask me because I am the only one who can tell you as I am the only one who knows, in all circumstances, what is and is not truth." It's a bad argument.

---

(January 20, 2017 at 1:30 pm)Nymphadora Wrote:

(January 20, 2017 at 12:53 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: It doesn't matter what you intended. What matters it that is is an insult. Both CL and I have explained to you why it is insulting and yet you persist. It's like accidentally saying to an African-Amercian that you are surprised at how well-spoken they are, being informed that it is condescending, but then continuing to say it anyway...because you don't mean it that way. It is your problem.

No. That is your interpretation of what she said.

Learn this if nothing else....

People are only responsible for what they say, not how others choose to understand it.

And this.  Blasphemy laws in other countries give Christians the right to not be offended.  I do not live in such a country.  Here, you have no such right.

I just wanna say one more thing on this thread, and it's in reference to the recent responses to Neo's last comment.

Don't most of you say it's insulting/condescending when others say they will pray for you when you're going through a tough time? Or when others say God bless you?

I'm sure most people who say those 2 things mean nothing but good intentions to the people they say it to. They don't even mean it to be a criticism. And yet I've seen plenty of atheists on this site claim it's insulting and condescending. I don't see why the rule of "it doesn't matter how you interpret it, only how the person saying it meant it" does not apply in this scenario.

I also have never seen any of you accuse someone of being "too sensitive" or "too insecure" when they say they are offended when folks tell them "I'll pray for you" and "God bless you."

But if I tell you it's insulting/condensing when you equate the beliefs that I hold to those held by 4 year olds, you call me too sensitive and insecure? And that it should only matter how people meant it, not how I took it?

I have a friend who is suffering from several severe autoimmune diseases. She lives across the country. I pray for her all the time. But because she is non religious, I never tell her I pray for her. Out of respect. I never tell people "God bless you" unless I am certain they are religious.

It doesn't matter that I would mean nothing but the best with those comments. If someone is offended by them, it takes nothing from me not to say them. And so out of respect for people like yourselves, I refrain from saying them. And of course, I never accuse them of being overly sensitive.

Isn't that how you want theists to treat you? Why would you not treat us with the same sensibilities you want us to treat you with?

Except I don't get offended simply because someone says they'll pray for me. It depends entirely on the reason behind the words. If they say it with good intentions, I know they care for me and I take it as positively as they meant it. If they are obviously saying it to be condescending, then they'll make sure it comes across that way.

All I've ever said about that is that I think the prayers are useless. I don't think they are naturally offensive.

It's not a good idea to beat up on straw men.

Look, I think the atheists are really deflecting here. I get you are insulting the beleif,not the person, but really people define themselves by their beliefs, memories, and actions. IT's one of the core things that makes a person who they are. So of course if you insult a belief (or lack-there-of) you are also insulting the person. Stop hiding and just own it.
Insulting ones belief does NOT mean you think they are a bad person, though, so on the other hand, those acting like it goes that far are too much as well.

I think it IS meant to be insulting. Not insulting on the level of like, hey you are a crazy person, but pointing out that it is childish and silly like the tooth fairy.

Look, if you just want to compare god to something that cannot be proven to exist, you can use Russel's Teapot as a great example.

If you want to make the comparison also include the idea that it is absurd, you can use the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Or the Pink Unicorn). That's why atheists invented these figures, after all.

If you want to include the idea that it is absurd AND childish AND silly, then you use the Tooth Fairy and Santa Clause.

It is the entire POINT of the comparisons, to show that that we do not believe in these other things as adults, god belief is only different in that society accepts it, and really in no other way. A lot of great minds have wasted effort trying to rationalize this one extraordinary claim as an exception when it meets no criteria to BE an exception, but instead should be held to the same standard.

I'm not saying it's ok to insult theists, Or that its too rude to use these arguments (again, I had a similar one used against me when I was a theist and I also found it insulting, but it helped me realize it was indeed an absurd belief), but just that it seems this is the entire point of the argument is to get the theist to see how ALL of these beliefs are absurd.

Is that wrong? If you went down the street unsolicited doing it, absolutely. That's an asshole thing to do. But theists are here on an atheist forum, asking us to discuss these subjects. We didn't come to a Christian forum, they came to us. Which is great! But, this is the exact proper place for using such arguments if such a place exists at all. Otherwise, we can just rename this, "Hanging Out" forum, and not discuss belief or lack-there-of at all.

And I don't care how they define themselves. I don't go by their personal definition of what can make a person who they are. My limits of criticism stop at what a person can control about themselves and beliefs can absolutely be controlled short of mental illness. Since I am not saying they are mentally ill, it's fair game at this point. Do you want me to treat them like they are mentally ill?

Sorry, but this just looks silly to me. No wait, I'm not sorry anymore.

(January 20, 2017 at 4:48 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I just wanna say one more thing on this thread, and it's in reference to the recent responses to Neo's last comment.

Don't most of you say it's insulting/condescending when others say they will pray for you when you're going through a tough time? Or when others say God bless you?

This topic has nothing to do with that though. So that's a moot point.

Quote:I also have never seen any of you accuse someone of being "too sensitive" or "too insecure" when they say they are offended when folks tell them "I'll pray for you" and "God bless you."

But if I tell you it's insulting/condensing when you equate the beliefs that I hold to those held by 4 year olds, you call me too sensitive and insecure? And that it should only matter how people meant it, not how I took it?  

Isn't that how you want theists to treat you? Why would you not treat us with the same sensibilities you want us to treat you with?

The point is - is that from what I've seen here in this thread, theists want their cake and eat it too. Theists like CW feel like they have the inalienable right to call people douchbags right off the bat, and then get offended when people take offense to that. He started this shit and others are trying to finish it because, quite frankly, this is his way of instigating and in reality, his first post calling people douchbags for their opinions, is immature and childish. It's like his opinion is the only one that matters and fuck anyone that doesn't agree. What's the point of discussion if this is the attitude from the get go?

And if an atheist started a post like that, directed at theists, would you be willing to defend that atheist for calling your fellow theists douchebags?