Even if theism is a failure, it's still superior to atheism

[polymath257]

to follow up on the "collective tone", what i said to Grand Nudger was not meant to sound condescending (Grand Nudger: if you took it that way, i'm sorry).  *but i said it because it really needed to be said: the collective tone that he and many others speak in i believe will cause a lot of problems, and potentially keep someone from believing who could have.

Good.

If pointing out the flaws in a belief keeps someone from adopting that belief, it is a good thing.

You see belief in Christianity as a good thing.  Most of us here do not.

i understand this often comes from a concern for others, which is a good thing.  but to not believe just because another doesnt believe i think is akin to crippling yourself because you feel bad for a man in a wheelchair.  this isnt the only way to handle this: Christianity teaches that the perfect way is to accept the free gift of health that you have, then (from commandment) dedicate yourself to the care of the man in the wheelchair as a result.  this lets you express your concern for others without denying yourself the personal contentment you have available to you.

But that isn't the point. The point is that the doctrine itself is disgusting and creates more evil than good.

  so i hope the members refrain from speaking in this tone and only present their own personal reasons for not believing.  should those reasons be addressed, perhaps those that dont believe could be given a reason to believe through you.

Again, good. They should not believe a horrid doctrine. if there is a chance that we can convince someone that Christianity (or any other theism) is to be discarded, that is a worthy goal to promote.

[Mister Agenda]

My complaint about Christians is not that they exist but that so few follow the advice supposedly given by Jesus concerning witnessing: to be as gentle as a dove, wise as a serpent, and if they won't listen to you, shake the dust off your feet and move on. We've all heard the 'good news', Christianity has reached market saturation. Now is the time to consider our position, and your position, very carefully to make sure you understand us and that you can offer some words likely to be effective. Praying about it might help.

Lol is he obligated to do that?

If they don't feel an obligation to follow the advice of Jesus, there's only a faint hope that they will feel obligated to follow my advice to follow the advice of Jesus.

[R00tKiT]

But there are times when absence of evidence *is* evidence of absence. For example, if I fail to detect an adult african elephant in my room, I can conclude that there is no adult african elephant in my room. 

Nope, you can't, if you fail to detect elephants in your room, this just means you failed to detect them, nothing more. I mean, most accidents in life happen because people are hilariously bad at detecting things.......?

Besides, I can say the same thing about quarks, or electrons : I fail to detect any trace of quarks or electrons in my room, they have no distinguishable form, or smell, or color, or flavor, they're undetectable even if one uses the most sophisticated microscope available, and science tells us they're extremely small, very suspicious.... So I conclude there are no electrons and quarks in my room..

I'll anticipate one possible objection : you may say there are experiments that can be done to show electrons are real, but this is irrelevant in this context. You're telling us that you, personally -not experiments, or machines, or other people-, couldn't detect an elephant, and from that fact alone, you allowed yourself to come to the hasty conclusion that the elephant doesn't exist. This is obviously a mistake.

But going deeper, if the detection is impossible even in principle, what does it even mean to say that something exists? I could then equally well argue that undetectable unicorns exist in my room. Who is to say otherwise?

If you provide plausible reasons for the unicorns existence -aside from detection-, then we have to assess these reasons on their own merits.
Some centuries ago, most discoveries in modern physics were completely undetectable, even in principle........

[Ahriman]

I can say the same thing about quarks, or electrons : I fail to detect any trace of quarks or electrons in my room, they have no distinguishable form, or smell, or color, or flavor, they're undetectable even if one uses the most sophisticated microscope available, and science tells us they're extremely small, very suspicious.... So I conclude there are no electrons and quarks in my room..

This is common sense. A rare thing in today's world.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, there we have it, just because I cant see any goddamned elephants in my room..that doesn't mean there aren't any elephants in my room. Very serious stuff, definitely making me think I should reconsider the subject of djinn.

[R00tKiT]

Well, there we have it, just because I cant see any goddamned elephants in my room..that doesn't mean there aren't any elephants in my room.  Very serious stuff, definitely making me think I should reconsider the subject of djinn.

Very serious stuff indeed. People can and do routinely miss obvious things. How many times did you search for your mobile phone while you were holding it ?

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh I know, I can't even count how many times I missed all these elephants in my room. They were probably hiding behind the pixies.

[Angrboda]

But there are times when absence of evidence *is* evidence of absence. For example, if I fail to detect an adult african elephant in my room, I can conclude that there is no adult african elephant in my room. 

Nope, you can't, if you fail to detect elephants in your room, this just means you failed to detect them, nothing more. I mean, most accidents in life happen because people are hilariously bad at detecting things.......?

Evidence is anything that supports a conclusion. An inference drawn from evidence can be wrong, that doesn't change its status as evidence. That's just the nature of inductive arguments. It's not proof that there are no elephants, but then he didn't say that it was.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Oh I know, I can't even count how many times I missed all these elephants in my room.  They were probably hiding behind the pixies.

Yes, I frequently miss the Unicorns and Invisible Dragons in my socks.....

[The Architect Of Fate]

Nope, you can't, if you fail to detect elephants in your room, this just means you failed to detect them, nothing more. I mean, most accidents in life happen because people are hilariously bad at detecting things.......?

Nope, it means there is no evidence for Elephants in your room and blaming perception for that lack of evidence is a weak excuse.