(January 23, 2017 at 2:26 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(January 23, 2017 at 12:26 pm)Asmodee Wrote: If I approached you on the street and told you about a magic guy who runs around healing people, predicting the future, raising people from the dead and the like, but these claims had nothing to do with what you already believe, would you even bother listening to it?...  Even if they weren't in conflict with what you believe you wouldn't even consider it as possible because you weren't raised from childhood to accept such fantastical claims without question and proof…In that respect a guess an atheist is really nothing more than someone who has rejected the propensity toward belief of certain fantastical claims without question planted in our brains during childhood.

It's unfair to castigate the average Christian in a mainstream denomination for having simplistic notions about theology. The most important thing about the Christian religion isn’t about what you intellectually believe. It’s about the heart. That’s why priests and preachers (in mainline churches) focus on teaching people about a God that cares for them personally and how to honor His loving-kindness. Laypeople don’t need to know the ins-and-outs of Theology or read biblical Hebrew.  I do and I can. But that’s just me. For the average Christian, though, the executive summary is sufficient. Is that so wrong? I have a basic understanding of economics, physics, and art history, but I’m no expert by any means. Nevertheless I can balance my checkbook, mix paint mediums, and appreciate Van Gogh.

Now I wholeheartedly agree with you about street preachers. There is one on State Street (Chicago) who babbles endlessly about the Lake of Fire and who’s going to be cast into it. He is clearly insane. So what? It’s stupid to compare some random wacko’s beliefs and values with those of Wilberforce, Bonheoffer and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Yet many AF members feel quite comfortable doing so. I have no problem calling them douchebags. That's not shutting down discussion. It's shocking you to reflect on your own belief - the one that allows you to equate great people with psychopaths.

I became an atheist in part because our Elders would gather us in the church basement to tell us that Dungeons & Dragons was demon worship and that we’d be tools of Satan if we listened to Led Zeppelin. Some of my schoolmates were Jehovah Witnesses. My AP friends and I had a lot of laughs over their tracts on YEC. They weren’t bad people. They just had bad theology and a piss-poor grasp of science.  They didn’t know any better.

It’s clear that a lot of AF members, like me, had the unfortunate luck grew up in repressive and/or intellectually bankrupt churches. That’s no excuse for going the other extreme. Just because you’re smart enough to know that biblical inerrancy is bullshit doesn’t make you a paragon of Reason capable of evaluating something like Plantinga’s ontological argument. I would bet money that 90% of people that put the words like logic or reason in their self-description haven’t even heard of modal logic. If all you've got is endlessly repeating "no evidence", can't see the obvious category error, even after it's been made obvious, then you're no better than Christians who quote the Bible to prove it's the Word of God.

"Great people" can still be idiots and assholes.  I think Dawkins is a "great man"...and a bit of a dick.  He is not beyond reproach simply because he's great.  He is not flawless.  I actually don't really like reading his writings or hearing him talk.  I'm not a personal fan of the man.  But that doesn't mean he's not a great man, going to great lengths to make the world a better place as he sees it.

An even better example is Bill Maher.  He's a great man to liberals, and a vaccine science denier.  He's a smart man who holds stupid beliefs.  And I don't mind you pointing out those stupid beliefs because doing "great things" doesn't get you a pass on moronic beliefs, so you can quit with the argument from authority already.  A great man and a stupid man can be the same man.

Theists believe in magic.  Most theists don't even know they believe in magic.  A "miracle" is just magic from a specific source.  Yet if you walk up to many, perhaps even most theists claiming to be able to cast magical spells they will laugh in your face because magic isn't real.  In fact, most of them (perhaps all, now that I think of it) I've talked to not only don't realize that "miracle" and "magic" are both proper words to describe the magical bits of the Bible, they actively deny that it's true.  I have been accused of exactly the same thing for referring to miracles as magic.  I'm just being a jerk.  I'm making fun of religion.  But here's the thing, I'M NOT!  I'm pointing out that there is no difference.  By the definitions of the words miracles are magic.  There's no trick of semantics.  There's no cherry picking of definitions.  Both words properly describe "miracles".

So is it disrespectful?  Many theists think so.  But no, it is not disrespectful to point out that the theist has chosen an alternate word to describe this particular type of magic in order to hide the fact that they are talking about magic.  It is not disrespectful to point out a deception, even if they believe it's not a deception.  The comparison between theistic beliefs and other magical beliefs is essentially doing the same thing, albeit in a more direct and often purposefully hurtful way.  There is no more evidence to support the existence of any god than there is to support the existence of fairies.  In fact, as I've pointed out, I've seen MORE evidence for the existence of the Tooth Fairy in my life than I've even been OFFERED for the existence of God.  I've just seen enough evidence to the contrary to conclude that the evidence I've seen was falsified.  But that doesn't change the fact that NOBODY is even claiming to have ANY physical evidence for God.  Not one shiny quarter or disappearing tooth has yet been produced.  Instead they try to slip "logical arguments" and "eyewitness accounts" past me.  They try to shift from science to "a court of law" because they think that will work more in their favor.  They try to trick me by offering me something which cannot be falsified, often even going so far as to claim it is science.  Hell, they're even actually calling their beliefs science now with intelligent design, pretending that "spotting design" in nature is something which can be conclusively done scientifically instead of the subjective garbage it really is.  They are offering their conclusion as the evidence that their conclusion is true.

Eventually we all come to the realization that they're just not going to see reason.  Ever.  They are going to keep lowering the bar for themselves and raising it for us.  They are going to keep dismissing all the actual, objective evidence we present outright and presenting subjective material as if it were "better" evidence.  They are going to keep misusing scientific terms, saying "It's just a theory" as if scientific theory were meaningless in one breath and then saying "This is a scientific theory!" in the next as if scientific theory were no longer meaningless and the garbage they just presented really smells like roses.  They are going to keep moving the bar, changing the goal and changing the rules in every conversation.  They are going to claim we don't understand the content, that we just don't want to believe, that we (or scientists) have some incentive to deny, that there is a global conspiracy against them, that science is the same as religion (this is a favorite target to either devalue science or elevate religion, often both), that we are attacking them, that we are being unfair (usually for requiring they abide by the same standards we do)...ANYTHING but present an honest argument because they know an honest argument will not make someone believe in magic.  Put up with that for five or ten years, put up with the blatant disrespect and stigma of not holding magical beliefs, put up with people trying to convert your children behind your back and without your knowledge, put up with having to fight constantly to keep religion out of the schools, put up with assholes who think BOTH that their tax dollars should not go to abortion and mine SHOULD pay for the Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn...put up with that for five or ten years and see how much "respect" you have for the other side.

You are missing the point. In practice, "no evidence" really means "the evidence presented does not support the conclusion." Theists can present all kinds of evidence. Some evidence is very poor, like seeing the face of Jesus in a Pancake or "the Bible sez". Some are better, like fine-tuning or just the fact that science works. Evidence means that which is evident, a simple observation. it's evident to anyone that the pancake looks like Jesus but for most people that's no reason suppose a miracle happened. It's evident to anyone that the physical universe appears to be designed but whether or not that is actually so requires careful study and thinking. Design evidence is something a reasonable person could accept even if ultimately it's not correct.

Now you may think you have knock-down objections and refutations for why every piece of evidence (that which is evident) doesn't support the proposition that god exists. And you may be right. Does that mean that all of them are equally unreasonable? I don't think so. Shouldn't you hold the person who justifies their belief on something plausible in higher regard than another who justifies their belief with blind faith? I think we should. The tooth fairy comparison basically says that every justification is faulty (that's fine if you believe that) and they are all silly (a step too far.) I don't think it is too much to say that what someone believes and why he believes it reflects either positively or negatively on him. Saying that someone hold's silly beliefs for stupid reasons is an indirect judgement of that person.

Arguments are not evidence, no matter how compelling.

(January 23, 2017 at 8:44 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Regarding descent from Khan, you're making two errors there: First, you're assuming that traits such as brutality and suchlike are genetic, when the overwhelming opinion among behavioral psychologists is that human behavior is a complex interaction between genetics and environment, wherein the proportions of each influence are usually uncertain. Your second error is in assuming that .5% of the male population is enough support for your point that such behavior demonstrates fitness. Even if it is entirely genetic (which is doubtful in the extreme), the fact is that we humans structure our society to contain such behavioral impulses in order to minimize the harm they cause.

First, I’m only saying that 0.5% of men carry the genes of Genghis Kahn. As such, the violent reproductive strategy of a Genghis Kahn was an effective way to produce offspring. Second, human nature includes the potential for both inhumane violence (Kahn) and courageous compassion (Bonheoffer). Culture, up-bringing and personal choice determine which nature will be expressed. I don’t believe any of that is controversial. Perhaps those two notions could serve as an area of broad agreement.

(January 24, 2017 at 2:24 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: Arguments are not evidence, no matter how compelling.

Do you have any evidence to support that statement?

(January 24, 2017 at 11:07 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Not really. But he has chosen to defend an idiotic position. He's bound to have those moments.

But isn't anyone who chooses to defend an idiotic position an idiot by definition?  I mean, I don't want to insult the guy anymore than he's already insulting himself and his intelligence by believing nonsense like he does, but come on.  I see theists like that all the time, defending downright stupidity because that's what their religious beliefs demand that they do.  It's why so many of these people end up on my ignore list, because it is literally impossible to have any kind of rational, intellectual discussion.

An argument is like the initial statement, such as "I have big feet".

Evidence would be showing big feet or maybe extra large shoes.

Its not a hard concept really.

(January 24, 2017 at 2:32 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

---

(January 24, 2017 at 2:24 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: Arguments are not evidence, no matter how compelling.

Do you have any evidence to support that statement?

No.

(January 24, 2017 at 2:19 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: You are missing the point. In practice, "no evidence" really means "the evidence presented does not support the conclusion." Theists can present all kinds of evidence. Some evidence is very poor, like seeing the face of Jesus in a Pancake or "the Bible sez". Some are better, like fine-tuning or just the fact that science works.

It is just exacerbating that you have no idea what is wrong with these statements. I'll try to explain it, not that you want to understand my explanation.

First of all, by "evidence" I am making the assumption that you are saying, at least in the broadest sense, "Evidence for the existence of some, but not necessarily a particular deity". That's giving you the benefit of doubt there.

Now, let's look at fine tuning. Does that constitute evidence for the existence of some deity? No, it does not. In fact, it's not "evidence" of anything. It's an argument, and properly argued it's not even an argument for the existence of a deity. The argument is that the universe and the life in it requires such a narrow set of variables to exist as we know it that the universe could only have been "fine tuned" for that life to arise. First of all, it's a shit argument. It already presumes that life was an intended consequence of the universe, and specifically life as we know it. It presumes that life was a necessary outcome. In short, it presumes a deity designed everything with the intended outcome and, if the outcome was intended, the universe must have been fine tuned to achieve that outcome and, since the universe was fine tuned to achieve the outcome, some deity exists. AT BEST it is circular logic. But it's not even that good, and here's why. It's called the "fine tuning" argument because the arguer is attempting to give evidence that the universe was fine tuned. NOT evidence that there is some deity, JUST evidence that the universe is fine tuned. IF you prove that the universe is fine tuned THEN you have evidence for the existence of a deity. But you cannot because, like all garbage arguments, "evidence" is in the eye of the beholder. It's not objective. It's not scientific. It's just another shit logical argument which you can never, ever, ever prove because there is no evidence for it, it's just another one of your beliefs.

Now on to the fact that science works. Really? The universe obeys known laws, therefore God? We have had intelligent conversations. You are not that stupid.

(January 24, 2017 at 2:19 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Evidence means that which is evident, a simple observation. it's evident to anyone that the pancake looks like Jesus but for most people that's no reason suppose a miracle happened. It's evident to anyone that the physical universe appears to be designed but whether or not that is actually so requires careful study and thinking. Design evidence is something a reasonable person could accept even if ultimately it's not correct.[/qoute]
You have really lowered the bar there with your definition of "evidence". Evident is the ROOT WORD, NOT the definition. The two are not the same. Evidence is the available body of "facts", NOT "simple observation".

IT IS NOT evident to "anyone" that the physical universe appears to be designed. What "appears to be" IS NOT SCIENCE! It is subjective shit, ANOTHER belief. What "evidence" do you have that the universe "appears to be designed"? Simple. Just look at it. It "APPEARS TO BE designed" to me. Your BELIEF is the "evidence" that your claim is true. Again this is circular logic. It "appears to be" designed TO YOU and those who agree with you. And THIS is evidence for some deity? HOW??? You still haven't shown that the universe IS designed! You're making a claim and using that claim as "evidence" to support a second, UNRELATED claim! IF the universe is designed THEN it's "evidence" to support the existence of a deity. You must FIRST provide evidence that the universe is designed sufficient to convince people who don't already believe it, but the only "evidence" you have of that is, "It looks that way to me".

[quote='Neo-Scholastic' pid='1493900' dateline='1485281971']
Now you may think you have knock-down objections and refutations for why every piece of evidence (that which is evident) doesn't support the proposition that god exists.

I sure do! You've mis-defined the word "evidence" to lower the bar and NONE of your arguments are actually arguments for the existence of ANY deity, much less some specific deity. You are arguing that DESIGN is real, not that God is real. Or you are arguing that FINE TUNING is real, not that God is real. IF they are real THEN they are "evidence" for a deity. But YOU CAN NOT use an argument that one thing is real as "evidence" that a second, unrelated thing is real!

(January 24, 2017 at 2:19 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: And you may be right. Does that mean that all of them are equally unreasonable?

Yes! It does! All of these things are beliefs! They are all EXACTLY the same, no matter how you dress them up or confuse them by changing definitions and quietly switching the targets.

(January 24, 2017 at 2:19 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I don't think so. Shouldn't you hold the person who justifies their belief on something plausible in higher regard than another who justifies their belief with blind faith? I think we should.[/qoute]
That's the thing. These things are not "plausible", you just think they are. They have been refuted countless times in countless ways by countless people. You've never even realized that the fine tuning argument is an "argument for fine tuning", NOT "evidence God". You can't even tell the difference between evidence and argument, thinking the two identical. And that utterly destroys all credibility these arguments have. If you feel the need to lower the bar by redefining words and artificially inflate the importance of what you're saying by confusing the subject, you just have shit. If you can't give an honest argument that you, yourself, can and have honestly evaluated then you just have shit.

[quote='Neo-Scholastic' pid='1493900' dateline='1485281971']
The tooth fairy comparison basically says that every justification is faulty (that's fine if you believe that) and they are all silly (a step too far.)

But it's not. These things ARE silly. These arguments are simple mental gymnastics where "evidence" and "belief" are confused as being that same thing and God is a moving target that is always moved directly in the path so you can't miss.

(January 24, 2017 at 2:19 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I don't think it is too much to say that what someone believes and why he believes it reflects either positively or negatively on him. Saying that someone hold's silly beliefs for stupid reasons is an indirect judgement of that person.

So what? We all judge each other all the time. We have since childhood, we will until the day we die. Welcome to the human race. It's about time you get used to being here.

(January 24, 2017 at 2:35 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: An argument is like the initial statement, such as "I have big feet".

Evidence would be showing big feet or maybe extra large shoes.

Big feet and extra large shoes are indeed evidence. If the feet and shoes are not yours then the evidence does not support the initial statement.

@Asmodee - you are taking a very black-and-white approach. I don't think the world is nearly as simple as that.

Size is relative.