(September 13, 2014 at 1:46 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Coupled with the lack of evidence, which you say should not even exist, and the only conclusion a critical thinker could come to is that there is no justification to believe.

And yet many "critical thinkers" are theists of some sort or the other. Whatever grounds we feel have not been justifiably met, they disagree, or the grounds by which we are expecting justification to arise are in different regions altogether. Or metaphysical naturalism itself cannot meet its own burden of proof and therefore the two alternatives each become one of preference rather than verification.

(September 13, 2014 at 1:46 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(September 13, 2014 at 11:54 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I've argued many times on this forum on the subject and not once has anyone successfully challenged the belief. Logic, it seems, is on my side, until someone can show otherwise.

You are simply incorrect.

There is not a single logical argument for the existence of a god that is without at least one fallacy.

The Cosmological Argument, Teleological Argument, Ontological Argument, TAG, have all been shown to be flawed, either in asserting the truth of premises, or validity of the arguments themselves.

Coupled with the lack of evidence, which you say should not even exist, and the only conclusion a critical thinker could come to is that there is no justification to believe.

It isn't just lack of evidence, and just "no justification to believe", it simply is not worth considering. People still do not want to take probability issues into consideration.

When you weigh the amount of evidence that people make up gods, and weigh the fact that science is pointing away from even the need for a god, the answer is obvious.

Not only is their no justification to believe the likelihood of any god existing is

0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%

It is not worth considering.

---

(September 13, 2014 at 1:45 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: I don't get the rationale for the vitriol and name-calling.

Who? Not me. Blunt yes, "vitriol"no. Your parents ever say "KNOCK IT OFF YOUR BEING STUPID". I think you mistake blasphemy and bluntness for hate. Hate in the context of hating bad logic, yes. Hate of human rights, no.

(September 13, 2014 at 1:46 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: You are simply incorrect.

There is not a single logical argument for the existence of a god that is without at least one fallacy.

The Cosmological Argument, Teleological Argument, Ontological Argument, TAG, have all been shown to be flawed, either in asserting the truth of premises, or validity of the arguments themselves.

Coupled with the lack of evidence, which you say should not even exist, and the only conclusion a critical thinker could come to is that there is no justification to believe.

As pickup said, I'm personally not looking to prove positively the logic of belief. I understand it to be a level playing field, and that's only right. Because I must believe on faith (act upon information that I trust to be true).

I disagree that all those arguments are flawed. I've seen them successfully defended on here. But again, those arguments never overstep the mark of faith being a requirement.

So I'm not incorrect. You are misunderstanding my position.

---

I think you've got nothing Brian.

I've got nothing? That is funny coming from someone who believes in an invisible sky hero.

You're the one who made the claim in your op Brian. I'm sure you'd want anyone to investigate any claims made.

2nd chance then.

To point out to you and to believers with other pet god claims that they AND YOU have NOTHING.

You are postulating without evidence the non material and it makes as much sense as postulating invisible pink unicorns. When you or anyone else in the world can produce evidence in a neutral lab setting of your "invisible sky hero theory" with your "poof" logic, then you'll have something to show the world.


The point of the OP is to get YOU to think without your god goggles on. You and every other human with a pet deity claim.

---

Seriously Froodo all kidding aside.....go debate a Muslim or Jew and try to convince them they are wrong and you got it right, then while they argue for their position see if you notice them making the same mistakes you make. You wont do that because you are not intellectually brave enough like they are, to consider that all of you got it wrong.

I think this conversation might have a chance of going somewhere if you stopped caricaturing Frodo's position with obvious straw-men, Brian. God as conceived by "critical thinkers" is not as simple as an "invisible pink unicorn" or the "invisible sky hero theory." It's about as silly to say that as it is to characterize the theory of evolution as predicting and failing to produce crocoducks.

(September 13, 2014 at 1:53 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(September 13, 2014 at 1:46 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Coupled with the lack of evidence, which you say should not even exist, and the only conclusion a critical thinker could come to is that there is no justification to believe.

And yet many "critical thinkers" are theists of some sort or the other. Whatever grounds we feel have not been justifiably met, they disagree, or the grounds by which we are expecting justification to arise are in different regions altogether. Or metaphysical naturalism itself cannot meet its own burden of proof and therefore the two alternatives each become one of preference rather than verification.

No.

They just compartmentalize their theistic beliefs.

They put them in a special place in their minds where they refuse or fail to evaluate them with the same level of critical thinking they use for all the other supernatural and extraordinary claims they have rejected.

Ask these critical thinking theists why they reject; bigfoot, UFO abductions, ancient aliens, levitating gurus, crystal healing, Tarot, etc, etc and they will almost assuredly reject them for the correct reasons (lack of: evidence, reasoned argument and valid/sound logic).

Ask them why they believe in a god, and you will not get the same level of critical thinking. You will get mental gymnastics.


Why are you bringing up metaphysical naturalism? I doubt most atheists are metaphysical naturalists, nor is it necessary to reject the supernatural.

The belief in gods and disbelieving in gods are not on equal intellectual, evidential, philosophical, ontological or existential footing.

(September 13, 2014 at 3:50 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(September 13, 2014 at 1:53 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: And yet many "critical thinkers" are theists of some sort or the other. Whatever grounds we feel have not been justifiably met, they disagree, or the grounds by which we are expecting justification to arise are in different regions altogether. Or metaphysical naturalism itself cannot meet its own burden of proof and therefore the two alternatives each become one of preference rather than verification.

No.

They just compartmentalize their theistic beliefs.

They put them in a special place in their minds where they refuse or fail to evaluate them with the same level of critical thinking they use for all the other supernatural and extraordinary claims they have rejected.

Ask these critical thinking theists why they reject; bigfoot, UFO abductions, ancient aliens, levitating gurus, crystal healing, Tarot, etc, etc and they will almost assuredly reject them for the correct reasons (lack of: evidence, reasoned argument and valid/sound logic).

Ask them why they believe in a god, and you will not get the same level of critical thinking. You will get mental gymnastics.

Not really.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gM2mcbdEH00
Where are the elite scientists and professors at prestigious schools who ascribe to any of those ideas you just mentioned? Maybe they're non-existent because there's a stark difference in the reasoning behind them?

(September 13, 2014 at 3:04 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: I think this conversation might have a chance of going somewhere if you stopped caricaturing Frodo's position with obvious straw-men, Brian. God as conceived by "critical thinkers" is not as simple as an "invisible pink unicorn" or the "invisible sky hero theory." It's about as silly to say that as it is to characterize the theory of evolution as predicting and failing to produce crocoducks.

Don't decide for him or me what either of us should do or can handle. He is a big boy and so am I.

Now what you are failing to see is that this is not a "caricaturing" of anything.

He IS starting with a naked assertion. He is basing his claim on an ancient book. He is no different than anyone else with another god claim or different holy book.

He is simply not used to me cutting to the chase. If you want to walk down his yellow brick road in detail with him that is between you and him. I do not treat him any differently than I do anyone else with a different claim.

You simply do not like my word choice. That is a comfort issue on your part but it does not mean the longer dance on his part constitutes evidence.

You do not have to read far into Harry Potter or watch 3 hours of Star Wars to know there is nothing there. I do not do that for him or anyone .

You come to the table with EVIDENCE first, not claims not tradition not holy books. If you do I will cut to the chase every time.