Turning the tables on atheism

[R00tKiT]

Just for giggles, there are about a half-billion more Christians than Muslims.  By this line of argument, it's highly probable that more Christians have rationally reconciled their beliefs than Muslims have.

Yes, it's highly probable. I didn't claim anywhere that an internally coherent belief is a correct belief.

---

So, to continue the train of thought/words. We find said stanza can be summed up as "Some folks managed to 'Square the circle' in their minds in regards to the impossibility of such an actual real thing and so accepted said theology. "

Am I following along correctly so far?

I'm not just bloviating or some such?

No, this is not the argument. I said that none of the objections to theism are conclusive, i.e. theism was never proven to be logically incoherent. Therefore, one is faced with two choices : exaggerate these objections and take the easy way out of belief OR reconcile these objections with belief. Since some people managed to do the latter, belief is more justified than non-belief.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Ah! So it's the "This all makes internal sense. Therefore possibly/provisionally true."

Cool, got you. Great.

So..... the writings about the Tuatha Dedanna are internlly consistent.

Should we therefore give credence to their existance?

Of course claiming the a square circle is internally consistent brings its own problems.

[The Grand Nudger]

Theism doesn't have to be incoherent for your beliefs to be incoherent or for a person to be an atheist.  That's your own problem, not any atheists.

I feel like we're all just going to keep repeating the obvious until it sinks into your thick skull. We already know that you exist. We already know that you've rationalized your beliefs. What did you think this was supposed to demonstrate, again?

Should we interpret your comments about taking the easy way out as you acknowledging that your religion is evil, and just not giving shit? Is that on that list of things? If your main complaint is that you can't argue your way out of being a death cultist...I think we see another you problem, not our problem.

[Angrboda]

You've moved from claiming that it's highly probable that the beliefs have been rationally reconciled (for which we have no evidence) to there is no reason to believe theism is incoherent.

Even if I believed that, it's a different argument. Stop moving the goalposts and settle on an argument. Please restate the argument which you want us to consider.

Whether any of the objections to theism are conclusive is a matter of debate and another claim that you have not provided evidence for. Are you just content to engage in a Gish Gallop?

[Fake Messiah]

I said that none of the objections to theism are conclusive, i.e. theism was never proven to be logically incoherent. [...] Since some people managed to do the latter, belief is more justified than non-belief

The problem with anyone ridiculing non-belief, including yourself, is that you are an atheist in all the gods except the one you believe in. So you are ridiculing yourself for not believing that Sai Baba is God, that Jesus is God, that Ganesha is God, etc.

[zebo-the-fat]

When you (or anyone else) provides some testable, repeatable evidence for a god then and only then will I believe in it, what your (or any other) magic book says about it is irrelevent

[downbeatplumb]

Just for giggles, there are about a half-billion more Christians than Muslims.  By this line of argument, it's highly probable that more Christians have rationally reconciled their beliefs than Muslims have.

Yes, it's highly probable. I didn't claim anywhere that an internally coherent belief is a correct belief.

---

So, to continue the train of thought/words. We find said stanza can be summed up as "Some folks managed to 'Square the circle' in their minds in regards to the impossibility of such an actual real thing and so accepted said theology. "

Am I following along correctly so far?

I'm not just bloviating or some such?

No, this is not the argument. I said that none of the objections to theism are conclusive, i.e. theism was never proven to be logically incoherent. Therefore, one is faced with two choices : exaggerate these objections and take the easy way out of belief OR reconcile these objections with belief. Since some people managed to do the latter, belief is more justified than non-belief.

The Dune books are logically coherent in their own fictional world. They are as factual as the bible/Koran/(insert religious text of choice).

[Pat Mustard]

<snip>

So the best way to "disprove" atheism are the alleged rantings of an insane and paedophilic mass murderer.

Yeah, and I'm the Queen of Sheba.

---

There is a group of servants of God who are well aware of the amount of suffering in this world, but didn't find it to be an obstacle to belief.

There is a group of servants of God who are aware of the hiddenness of God, but didn't find it to be an obstacle to beleif.

They obviously have big obstacles believing God of Qur'an because "If they had gotten rid of the apostasy punishment, Islam wouldn't exist." - Yusuf al-Qaradawi

Yer man sounds sozzled.

[R00tKiT]

Theism doesn't have to be incoherent for your beliefs to be incoherent or for a person to be an atheist.  That's your own problem, not any atheists.

No, you're lying. Many atheists have a problem with evil, for example, many of them, actually, became atheists as a result of some traumatic event highlighting suffering. In this case, we have people who would otherwise believe in God if these obstacles weren't there.

I feel like we're all just going to keep repeating the obvious until it sinks into your thick skull.  We already know that you exist.  We already know that you've rationalized your beliefs. What did you think this was supposed to demonstrate, again?

It demonstrates that those who find the arguments for God compelling have no excuse to reject belief, because many people managed to reconcile belief with these so-called excuses.

Should we interpret your comments about taking the easy way out as you acknowledging that your religion is evil, and just not giving shit?  Is that on that list of things?  If your main complaint is that you can't argue your way out of being a death cultist...I think we see another you problem, not our problem.

Of ccourse I can argue my way out of my belief. I actually do have issues with it, like God revealing his message to a handful of people, or the well-known story of al-Khidr, as described in 18:65-82, or the corruption of earlier scripture, and other issues. I can choose the easy way out and say these issues are serious enough to reject belief, instead of trying to better understand them.

---

You've moved from claiming that it's highly probable that the beliefs have been rationally reconciled (for which we have no evidence) to there is no reason to believe theism is incoherent.

Even if I believed that, it's a different argument.  Stop moving the goalposts and settle on an argument.  Please restate the argument which you want us to consider.

Whether any of the objections to theism are conclusive is a matter of debate and another claim that you have not provided evidence for.  Are you just content to engage in a Gish Gallop?

I didn't change anything, read the post more carefully, please. My argument stands : it's highly probable that they have been reconciled. Do you disagree? You say we have no evidence that theism is coherent, well, we usually don't try to prove a negative (there is no contradiction in theism), we simply say : atheists were trying with this problem for thousands of years and didn't manage to come up with a contradiction, therefore it's almost certain that there is none.

---

So the best way to "disprove" atheism are the alleged rantings of an insane and paedophilic mass murderer.

Yeah, and I'm the Queen of Sheba.

How do you know Muhammad PBUH is "insane", you must be a very skilled psychiatrist to come up with this precise retrospective diagnosis.

---

When you (or anyone else) provides some testable, repeatable evidence for a god then and only then will I believe in it, what your (or any other) magic book says about it is irrelevent

What you're asking for is how we prove there is a physical object or particle, not a supernatural agent.

[The Grand Nudger]

Theism doesn't have to be incoherent for your beliefs to be incoherent or for a person to be an atheist.  That's your own problem, not any atheists.

No, you're lying. Many atheists have a problem with evil, for example, many of them, actually, became atheists as a result of some traumatic event highlighting suffering. In this case, we have people who would otherwise believe in God if these obstacles weren't there.

I think you may have a reading comprehension issue?  What is it, exactly, that you think atheism is? Many atheists are also right handed. Do you think that arguing against right handedness answers atheism, in some way?

I can go pretty much any direction you like with it, being a right handed atheist who has a problem with evil. I don't have any traumatic obstacles in my life preventing belief, though, so that's a wash I guess. If you think that more people would believe in your silly god if their life were better in some undefined way - that sounds like gods problem. Tell the big man to stop fucking around and pick up some slack.

I feel like we're all just going to keep repeating the obvious until it sinks into your thick skull.  We already know that you exist.  We already know that you've rationalized your beliefs. What did you think this was supposed to demonstrate, again?

It demonstrates that those who find the arguments for God compelling have no excuse to reject belief, because many people managed to reconcile belief with these so-called excuses.

Are you trying to demonstrate something about people who find arguments for god compelling, or atheists....? I think that everyone here would probably expect for people who find arguments for gods compelling to be able to then rationalize their beliefs. As we've all said one way or another - we already understand that you exist.

Should we interpret your comments about taking the easy way out as you acknowledging that your religion is evil, and just not giving shit?  Is that on that list of things?  If your main complaint is that you can't argue your way out of being a death cultist...I think we see another you problem, not our problem.

Of ccourse I can argue my way out of my belief. I actually do have issues with it, like God revealing his message to a handful of people, or the well-known story of al-Khidr, as described in 18:65-82, or the corruption of earlier scripture, and other issues. I can choose the easy way out and say these issues are serious enough to reject belief, instead of trying to better understand them.

I knew it would be a blast.  You're not worried about belonging to a death cult, but man..the possibility for typos just keeps you up at night!

Let me hazard a guess. You're stumbling between the very different subjects of people who don't believe in gods, and people who reject your religion for it's barbarity, inadequacy, or idiocy. People who, even if they believed in a god..would still reject your religion for those reasons. So, pretty much every other god botherer..and some right handed atheists.