Evidence for a god. Do you have any? Simplified arguments version.

[A. Secular Human]

PRJA93 has a point.  After all, how many of us would let it slide if someone said, I know I have no evidence to provide for the existence of the fairies that dance naked in my garden at midnight, but I still believe in them and their cavorting beneath moonbeams.

No delusion is above reproach, no matter how kind the individual is.

I'd want to be friends with Mr./Ms./Mrs./whatever moonbeam fairy because their world is so much more interesting than mine and their belief isn't appreciably harmful.

While I find god belief silly, I'm not going to chastise any theist who admits how illogical it is.  Why would I?  I'm not a heathen proselytizer.  My goal in life isn't to bring new people into the un-flock.

Moreover, in my experience, this kind of theist is mostly benign.  Their belief is usually a source of personal comfort rather than the foundation of their entire worldview.  These generally aren't the people who point at the bible in order to justify heinous shit.

Ooh!  Someone else who enjoys Live!

[Ravenshire]

MysticKnight is some sort of "Word Salad Bot", I'm now convinced.

Nah. He was once a funny, kinda quirky, halfway intelligent guy. He took a break from the forum and returned as the basket case you see today.

---

That fault is yours, Torah, Psalms, Gospels, Quran, are filled with proofs of God.

Only in your fevered, erotic daydreams.

---

PRJA93 has a point.  After all, how many of us would let it slide if someone said, I know I have no evidence to provide for the existence of the fairies that dance naked in my garden at midnight, but I still believe in them and their cavorting beneath moonbeams.

No delusion is above reproach, no matter how kind the individual is.

As long as that person isn't knocking at my door spreading the word of the dancing fairies, I wouldn't have so much as a single fuck to give. I may find them a bit daft, but why should I care about what they believe?!?

[EgoDeath]

No one has to "let her" have her belief. She can believe whatever she wants, however she wants. It doesn't require me or anyone else, for that matter, to "let her" do it. And pushiness? No, not really. I'm just pointing out the intellectual dishonesty. Pushy would be, oh I don't know, maybe knocking on people's doors to try and convince them to become atheists. THAT'D be pushy. How strange to for you to even chime in like that, considering she was the one insulting me. This is, in fact, a thread about evidence for god, on a forum called "Atheist Forum." Are you surprised a theist is being challenged?

Maybe I'm missing something here then. Because, from what I can read, you were the one who started the insult by saying she's being intellectually dishonest for merely believing in a god?

Yes, this is an atheist forum, and theists, and anyone else for that matter participating in a debate thread, should be challenged if they express views that warrant that challenge. But if the theist's crime is that she expresses belief in a god while acknowledging that there is no evidence for their god, I personally don't see a need to challenge in that case.

I mean, fine, if you want to challenge her, that's your choice. But I guess what prompted me to reply to you was your charge that she was being intellectually dishonest when she came off as being quite the opposite, and that bugged me for a reason. Because I wish more theists were as honest as she is about their views.

And yet, she clearly said she realized she was being intellectually dishonest AFTER I made the claim (though she didn't say so while quoting my post), which I hardly consider an insult, simply an observation of someone's view on a subject. You not seeing a difference between calling out intellectual dishonesty and just straight up hurling insults is hard to believe, but I suppose I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I don't respect any kind of intellectual dishonesty and I would rather be called out than pandered to because you think I'm nice.

And still, someone saying, "I believe in god even though I know it makes no sense to and there's no evidence to" is still wrong, even if it's "more honest" than the way others approach the subject. Your post to me came off as incredibly biased toward the other user, who I'm assuming you already know and have interacted with before. Whatever, it's no skin off my back, I wasn't the one insulting people over a conversation that lasted less than a few replies back and forth.

PRJA93 has a point.  After all, how many of us would let it slide if someone said, I know I have no evidence to provide for the existence of the fairies that dance naked in my garden at midnight, but I still believe in them and their cavorting beneath moonbeams.

No delusion is above reproach, no matter how kind the individual is.

Well, I consider there to be a world of difference between belief in limited fairies in some garden and a supposedly unlimited, vaguely-defined ultimate being referred to as God. I don't consider theism to be delusional perse.

The only real difference is people are taught, seriously, to follow and believe in the latter. Which, to me, isn't much of a difference. An inaccurate fairy tale that one was taught about when they were young is still an inaccurate fairy tale.

[Gwaithmir]

That fault is yours, Torah, Psalms, Gospels, Quran, are filled with proofs of God.

Yeah, and I'm King Isildur.

[GrandizerII]

And yet, she clearly said she realized she was being intellectually dishonest AFTER I made the claim (though she didn't say so while quoting my post),

I may have missed that part, but if that's what she actually said, then she's just as confused as you are about what intellectual dishonesty means.

Intellectual dishonesty would be like arguing that there is [compelling] evidence for God even though the person making that argument realizes that there just isn't. Saying that they believe in God because they feel it is not intellectual dishonesty. It's just not intellectual, that's all.

which I hardly consider an insult, simply an observation of someone's view on a subject.

Ok, say I told you that it's quite idiotic of you to hold such an argument. Is this not an insult?

You not seeing a difference between calling out intellectual dishonesty and just straight up hurling insults is hard to believe, but I suppose I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I don't respect any kind of intellectual dishonesty and I would rather be called out than pandered to because you think I'm nice.

But that's NOT an example of intellectual dishonesty. IMO, you were unnecessarily aggressive with her simply because she said she believes in God in spite of a lack of evidence.

And still, someone saying, "I believe in god even though I know it makes no sense to and there's no evidence to" is still wrong, even if it's "more honest" than the way others approach the subject.

I recall her saying that it made sense to her. It's not wrong if that's how she honestly feels. So many people on this planet honestly feel a connection with some higher power and consider it very intuitive.

Your post to me came off as incredibly biased toward the other user, who I'm assuming you already know and have interacted with before. Whatever, it's no skin off my back, I wasn't the one insulting people over a conversation that lasted less than a few replies back and forth.

You did insult her, though. And no, I don't give a fuck about "nice" and "kind". That's Kit saying this, not me. In fact, I've had a go at nice theists multiple times in these forums. I care way more about people not insulting my intelligence and, funnily enough, not being intellectually dishonest. This just wasn't an example of that. And it doesn't matter if you're theist or atheist. Atheists say some dumb shit as well, and a few I've noticed have terrible critical thinking skills, with arguments that sometimes make me cringe when they try to debate with theists here.

The only real difference is people are taught, seriously, to follow and believe in the latter. Which, to me, isn't much of a difference. An inaccurate fairy tale that one was taught about when they were young is still an inaccurate fairy tale.

No, it's not like that at all. Like I said earlier, the existence of a higher power is very intuitive to these people, and they feel its presence. It's not just simply them believing it because their mums and dads taught them to. And you didn't even care to ask what she meant by "God" to see what kind of god she believes in. You just went straight for the attack, lol.

And in the case of those who believe in fairies dancing naked in some garden, I'm still not necessarily going to have a go at them just because they do. If someone tells me they truly believe in these fairies, the last thing I would do is try to challenge them on that because odds are good there's a bigger [psychological] problem that I'm ill-equipped to deal with here, so I would just stay quiet and leave them be.

[EgoDeath]

Okay, you win, I lose. I'm done with this conversation.

I'm calling out a theist for intellectual dishonesty in a thread about evidence for god, at which point she then admitted to being intellectually dishonest, and you want to sit here and debate about it? Nope. I'm good lol.

So yea you can have the win here if it makes you feel better. I've honestly already explained myself far too much for such a minute disagreement.

[Mystic]

1. Morality is true guidance.

2. If we decided morality, humans would be the source of guidance.

3. Humans and ourselves included aren't reliable means of determining guidance for ourselves or others.

4. If Humans aren't a reliable source of guidance, so aren't other sentient beings who don't have proof for their guidance to be reliable.

5. The only reliable source of guidance is that which has proof of their guidance.

6. If a human or sentient being were to have reliable guidance, it would be due to being guided by something other then beings without proof of their guidance.

7. The only reliable guidance possible is from the absolute being which never misguides or errs and guides to the truth and hence guides who guide others, require to prove they are upon guidance of this being.

8. True morality exists.

9. Therefore reliable guidance exists.

10. Therefore God exists.


This also happens to refute deism and prove religion is needed.

[purplepurpose]

1. Morality is true guidance.

....

9. Therefore reliable guidance exists.

10. Therefore God exists.


This also happens to refute deism and prove religion is needed.

Where you got such strong arguments?

[Mystic]

Reflecting over Quran and Ahlulbayt [as] word's of light and clear bright signs, as well the signs of God within myself. In the "Does Quran prove God?" I will present the above argument in many verses in Quran, through out.

Quran has many good arguments for God's existence and oneness, for Atheists, but Muslims in large part are themselves oblivious to them and have not presented them, but relied on their blind scholars for arguments like Cosmological and so on and so forth.

[purplepurpose]

Reflecting over Quran and Ahlulbayt [as] word's of light and clear bright signs, as well the signs of God within myself. In the "Does Quran prove God?" I will present the above argument in many verses in Quran, through out.

Quran has many good arguments for God's existence and oneness, for Atheists,  but Muslims in large part are themselves oblivious to them and have not presented them, but relied on their blind scholars for arguments like Cosmological and so on and so forth.

Don't you think that people here are too cynical to accept your praise of faith and you just waste your time?