Why make stupid unsustainable arguments?

[Cato]

People have been around for 6-13 million years, depending on how you want to define our ancestry. But 6 million years ago is when our oldest known ancestor lived that was separate to chimps (and it could stretch back 13 million years), thus from that time our species was "special". Perhaps not as special as it is now, but it was different enough to eventually lead to modern humans.

It's quite evident that you either don't understand or don't give a rat's ass about evolution; otherwise, you wouldn't be claiming that people existed 6-13 million years ago (the span of your conjecture is also highly amusing despite your qualification). Your only out in this argument is to proclaim and defend the notion that chimps can be considered people.

My point is these beliefs are part of human nature.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13fen80rnnk

40K - 60K years of Aboriginal supernatural beliefs. I'd really like to know how you got in their heads, because as far as I know all we have are some fucking bones from that time frame. I don't know of any cave drawings or books dating back this far so I'm interested as to your insight regarding their beliefs.

Another question, if Australian Aborigines are so special to our collective humanity, why do you modern Australians continue to fuck them over? Rhetorical. My real point is demonstrating your blatant hypocrisy. Your obvious and justifiable answer is to state that you don't discriminate, nor do a majority of Australians; however, you don't take such a heterogeneous view of Americans when lambasting us. Double standard, no?

[The Grand Nudger]

[Citation needed]

From what I know, people haven't been around that long. By what metric are you measuring more good than harm?

People have been around for 6-13 million years, depending on how you want to define our ancestry. But 6 million years ago is when our oldest known ancestor lived that was separate to chimps (and it could stretch back 13 million years), thus from that time our species was "special". Perhaps not as special as it is now, but it was different enough to eventually lead to modern humans.

Belief in the supernatural has been around for as long as we know. The Aborigines here in Australia have a belief system that stretches back at least 40-60,000 years, and theirs is the oldest known & still present belief system. My point is these beliefs are part of human nature.

I don't need to measure it in antiquity, I rely solely on the scientific theories of game theory and evolution (as applied to systems).

Belief in the supernatural seems to spring up at full modernity, it's one of the metrics of full modernity.  We currently place that at 40-50k years ago. Over that time the nature of how we express those beliefs appears to have changed drastically (even for aboriginal australians).  We most definitely have not been around for 6 to 13 million years, and it hardly matters how far back our first distinct ancestor is as our first anatomically modern hss ancestors don't appear to have held the beliefs that we later began to express at full modernity....quite the contrary, we appear to have plugged along for up to 200k years before the thought crossed our mind in a way that would be noticeable to us today.  We may have believed earlier and simply didn't leave artifacts...but it's pointless to make that claim in the absence of evidence.  

I agree that belief is part of human nature....just couldn't stand to watch the point established in such a retarded way.

@Cato, the oldest known aboriginal cave art dates to around or nearly after full modernity. I don't know that this actually expresses a belief in the supernatural, that would be a stretch, but it would be surprising if the aborigines where an outlier. The notion that Aract has expressed, that the rock art of that time is indicative of the same faith tradition that exists today in aborigines is patently ludicrous, however. There's no way to establish the truth of that claim. It would be like claiming that the cave art in france was part of the same tradition of paganism that would dominate the atlantic bronze age.

[Mr.wizard]

I don't need to refute Christianity or argue against Christianity. It is self-defeating.

To say that something is self-defeating is a positive statement requiring an argument and evidence.

You may be right, of course, but merely asserting it doesn't advance the ball.

---

I wanted to come back to this because this has to do with the OP. I firmly believe you are correct, the arguments listed cannot persuade a belief in God. My intent was to point out that belief in God is not irrational and can therefore be discussed in a reasonable manner and with respect. 

An interesting dynamic can be observed on both sides. 

There are Christians that think they can come in and with a little typing change your minds. I think all of them are sincere, These range from people who are sincere but unprepared (either factually or cognitively) to those that want to learn what the objections are and research and come back. The first group is frustrating to everyone else (including the second group). 

The very same thing happens with atheists. They think if they type "there is no evidence for gawd or jebus" that they win. They are often unprepared (either factually or cognitively). Some feel the need for shock, contempt, and/or derision.  Others know the arguments and can engage in a productive and civil dialog. 

A comment about the atheist that feels the need for shock, contempt, and/or derision toward theists or Christians in general: it is juvenile and shows a lack of character. Whether God exists or not and whether Christianity is true has been debated for millennium. There is nothing new that you can bring up that has not been discussed and written about to a staggering degree by people way smarter than those here (on both sides). There has been no new discovery that makes our generation more enlightened than the previous. You do not have a monopoly on truth. Intelligent people can agree to disagree with civility.

I agree, and you've echoed the main point of the OP very nicely, I think. Stupid arguments on both sides are pointless. And it is just as POINTLESS for a skeptic to parrot "There is no evidence for God" (Since there is circumstantial evidence, at least.) than it is for the believer to chant, "God said it. I believe it. And that settles it." (No, it really doesn't settle anything.)

However, after reading through a lot of older threads, it appears that this forum is (for the majority of its members) less about serious apologetics and more about having a place to vent and feel safe after being hurt by negative experiences in the past. You can view some old posts/polls that show how many people here are former Christians, for example. There are some exceptions, and you can usually tell when someone is giving you serious thought and not just mockery of the "buy-bull", etc.

So, I'm hoping for some GOOD discussion, and I plan on harpooning stupid thinking whenever I encounter it. Naturally, I expect the same in return.

Can you give me an example of the circumstantial evidence for god?

[Angrboda]

I don't need to measure it in antiquity, I rely solely on the scientific theories of game theory and evolution (as applied to systems).

read: "I pulled it out of my ass."

[athrock]

To say that something is self-defeating is a positive statement requiring an argument and evidence.

You may be right, of course, but merely asserting it doesn't advance the ball.

---

I agree, and you've echoed the main point of the OP very nicely, I think. Stupid arguments on both sides are pointless. And it is just as POINTLESS for a skeptic to parrot "There is no evidence for God" (Since there is circumstantial evidence, at least.) than it is for the believer to chant, "God said it. I believe it. And that settles it." (No, it really doesn't settle anything.)

However, after reading through a lot of older threads, it appears that this forum is (for the majority of its members) less about serious apologetics and more about having a place to vent and feel safe after being hurt by negative experiences in the past. You can view some old posts/polls that show how many people here are former Christians, for example. There are some exceptions, and you can usually tell when someone is giving you serious thought and not just mockery of the "buy-bull", etc.

So, I'm hoping for some GOOD discussion, and I plan on harpooning stupid thinking whenever I encounter it. Naturally, I expect the same in return.

Can you give me an example of the circumstantial evidence for god?

Do philosophical arguments count?

[The Grand Nudger]

If arguments were evidence we'd call them evidence..and not arguments...now wouldn't we? You've clearly conflated the two..and just to put a cherry on top..forgot that arguments -require- evidence to be convincing.

[athrock]

If arguments were evidence we'd call them evidence..and not arguments...now wouldn't we?

No. Arguments are just one TYPE of evidence.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, they aren't, lol. That which is evident does not need to be argued, and is..in fact, the foundation upon which arguments are made.

[athrock]

No, they aren't, lol.  That which is evident does not need to be argued, and is..in fact, the foundation upon which arguments are made.

When the cases for abortion and gay marriage are argued before the Supreme Court, what empirical, physical evidence is presented?

[Mr.wizard]

Can you give me an example of the circumstantial evidence for god?

Do philosophical arguments count?

Arguments for gods existence are not circumstantial evidence, because what you need is a conclusion and a fact, then between you make an inference. As far as the existence of god goes we have no facts or conclusions, we don't even know any of its characteristics or capabilities, we don't even know if such an entity is even possible.