Quote: 1. We have no more evidence for basic logic than for unicorns (any argument for logic would be circular)

That is untrue. Logic is a method, not a thing. We have plenty of evidence to suppot the efficacy of logic and reason and the consideration of evidence; there are tried and true. Unicorns and gods are not.

By rejecting logic and reason, you forfeit your right to (in your case PRETEND TO) use them in discussion with reasonable people, which means you really have nothing useful or interesting to say.

---

Quote: The second "if" was because I don't know for sure who goes to hell and a lot of theology has gone on after Pascal (17th century).

...and men are the arbiters of this?

---

Quote: I also want to make clear that it is possible to experience God personally, and so simply because you cannot verbalize the experience perfectly doesn't make it unreal or invalid. If discount the possibility of this apriori you are attacking a straw-man.

It doesn't matter how many times you assert this by fiat, it holds absolutely no weight because you refuse to define, describe, and substantiate it. It's bullshit.

---

Quote: Is your problem elementary logic?

(July 6, 2012 at 12:58 am)jerNYC Wrote: This is my first post here. I’m an "atheist" and I’ve gotten renewed interest in the subject after I saw an interview with Neil Degrasse Tyson recently, where he basically gave the same reasons for his disbelief that I have. I’m interested in finding out the reasons and arguments that other atheists have for their disbelief. Hopefully, it will inform my own reasoning. Here are three reasons for why I "don't believe in God":

Reason 1. God is an unverifiable idea: There’s no concise definition of god, so a god can be anything that believers want it to be. This means that the definition of god can change to evade falsification. For example, when Darwin discovered that species are created by natural selection, rather than the God of Genesis, the definition of the Biblical God changed. No one today worships natural selection, even though it’s the actual mechanism responsible for the creation of new species. However, people do continue to believe in the Biblical God. The fact that the definition of god can change prevents us from ever verifying a god's existence.

Reason 2. The evidence is illogical: Believers provide no explanation for how their gods work, so there’s no testable mechanism to demonstrate that their gods exist. For example, when Christians point to Creation as evidence of their god’s existence, they’re making an illogical connection between their god and that evidence. The rest of us can’t verify that their god actually created anything, unless we know exactly how their god creates things. Only then can we rationally weigh their explanation against their observations and potential evidence. For example, intelligent design advocates believe that an intelligent god created the bacterial flagellum because it is irreducibly complex (they argue that it takes intelligence to produce complexity), but they have never explained how a god creates this kind of complexity. Thus, we cannot verify that the bacterial flagellum is the product of their god’s handiwork, instead of some other mechanism. We just have to accept their "evidence" on faith alone.

Reason 3. God lives in the gaps: The belief in gods has never provided the correct explanation for the phenomena believers try to explain, so gods end up being the personification of our ignorance. These supernatural explanations are merely place holders until science can find the real cause of the phenomena. As Neil Tyson said, “God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance.”

That basically sums up my disbelief in god(s). So, is there still a chance that I can be saved?

I like what you wrote, and I would concur, but I don' know if I really need a reason to lack a belief in gods. From my point of view, it is pretty obvious that religions were created by man and what god one worships, seems to depend on the time and place to which the believer was born. The religions of today are nothing more than myth and story, and I can appreciate fiction for what it is.

Isn't it a little fatalistic to cite environment? If that was how the world worked then how does change occur? Also, the masses could be ignorant, as masses might be prone to be. The environment argument, it would seem, should be equated with the argument from ignorance. (as always, I put this accusation to all sides of the theistic fence.)

(July 14, 2012 at 12:56 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Isn't it a little fatalistic to cite environment? If that was how the world worked then how does change occur? Also, the masses could be ignorant, as masses might be prone to be. The environment argument, it would seem, should be equated with the argument from ignorance. (as always, I put this accusation to all sides of the theistic fence.)

It's not fatalistic, it goes to demonstrate how young minds are indoctrinated before they have a chance to develop critical thinking skills.

The most overwhelming indicator of ones religion is their environment. Sure, some small percentage of people convert, but they are the exception, not the rule. 2.5% of the population of India is Christian. That percentage has not changed since 1961.

The fact that a person's religion can be pretty accurately predicted by their parent's religion and the dominant religion of the country they were raised in is in no way like argument from ignorance. I would like to know how you equate them?

Not enough holidays.
Too few miscreants being smited.
The sightings of gods are on par with ass probing aliens.

(July 14, 2012 at 1:14 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: The fact that a person's religion can be pretty accurately predicted by their parent's religion and the dominant religion of the country they were raised in is in no way like argument from ignorance. I would like to know how you equate them?

So what outcome did your own immediate environment predict for you?

If the current overwhelming majority belief is atheistic, does that make the subsequent generation mindless automatons if they too embrace atheism?

(My parents are/were both atheists btw)

(July 14, 2012 at 4:52 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: So what outcome did your own immediate environment predict for you?

If the current overwhelming majority belief is atheistic, does that make the subsequent generation mindless automatons if they too embrace atheism?

(My parents are/were both atheists btw)

When did I ever state that one's environment is a 100% predictor?

You did notice this quote, right?

Quote:The most overwhelming indicator of ones religion is their environment. Sure, some small percentage of people convert, but they are the exception, not the rule.

I have never run across an atheist parent that discourages their children from making their own decision. There is no scare tactic atheist parents use that is in the least bit similar to telling you children they will be punished for eternity if they change their beliefs.

How many times have you read posts here were atheists say their religious parents are afraid for their 'soul' if they don't start believing? What would be the atheist equivalent?

(July 14, 2012 at 12:56 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Isn't it a little fatalistic to cite environment? If that was how the world worked then how does change occur? Also, the masses could be ignorant, as masses might be prone to be. The environment argument, it would seem, should be equated with the argument from ignorance. (as always, I put this accusation to all sides of the theistic fence.)

LOL Frodo calls argument from ignorance.

Classic.

@moomie

So the fact that the developed world has switched from Christianity to atheism negates everything you just said.

So now we have 2 reasons to suppose that environment counts for nothing.

Quote:from all the way back in Genesis

From "all the way back" in genesis," Jeff? When exactly do you think this shit was written? Or, perhaps it is better to state, when was it last re-written?

http://www.worldagesarchive.com/Referenc...ers%29.htm

Quote:In the last quarter century or so, archaeologists have seen one settled assumption after another concerning who the ancient Israelites were and where they came from proved false. Rather than a band of invaders who fought their way into the Holy Land, the Israelites are now thought to have been an 'indigenous culture that developed west of the Jordan River around 1200 B.C. Abraham, Isaac, and the other patriarchs appear to have been spliced together out of various pieces of local lore.

The Davidic Empire, which archaeologists once thought as incontrovertible as the Roman, is now seen as an invention of Jerusalem-based priests in the seventh and eighth centuries B.C. who were eager to burnish their national history. The religion we call Judaism does not reach well back into the second millennium B.C. but appears to be, at most, a product of the mid-first.

You'd better stop reading that bible shit and catch up on what is happening in the real world.