General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

God belief is special only in the sense that it's almost ingrained into our society to accept it as 'plausible' and to accept other people's rights to believe whatever they want (with which I agree) but a simple exercise in reason shows that it's the same as any other credulous belief. There isn't any good reason to believe it's true, and to equate it with other things we don't know 100% but have good reason to believe through either logical or evidential reasons is to really do injustice to the search for truth. There has been a lot of 'you believe this, I believe that-and both are the same' going on in this thread but that is absolutely not the case. There are very good reasons to believe that the earth is here and that gravity is real and that atoms make up the small parts of matter. There are no good reasons to believe that an invisible sky daddy is watching our every move.

For example, imagine someone came up to you and said 'I believe that unicorns are real.' It's outside the realm of scientific testing and logical consistency. We can't PROVE that unicorns aren't real. Does that make the belief reasonable??

Are we really being asked in this thread to throw down and accept that this belief is not only reasonable, but on the same level as believing in gravity, or evolution?

If you say yes, than you have to give the same amount of credit to any other belief that has the same criterion (that a giant purple elephant created the world, that the universe really lies on the back of a turtle, who is resting on another larger turtle, etc.).

If you say no, then the god-belief has to separated from other belief systems based on logic and evidence.

Belief in unicorns or invisible teacups is no different quantitatively from belief in invisible men in the sky. I'm not gonna fall for this particular ruse and you shouldn't either, because it attempts to give pyrrhic credibility to a belief that has none.

The reason the thread has degraded to this kind of see-sawing is because there really are no good logical, evidential, or reasonable reasons to believe in a deity and theists know this, so they attempt to gain standing through subterfuge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

Are we really being asked in this thread to throw down and accept that this belief is not only reasonable, but on the same level as believing in gravity, or evolution?

No.
That said, should we allow theists to express their points of view and beliefs without berating them or implying that they are of lower intelligence because they believe in a god?
Yes.

If you ever manage to speak with him, ask him why he put nipples on men?

BDSM implications, obv.

No.
That said, should we allow theists to express their points of view and beliefs without berating them or implying that they are of lower intelligence because they believe in a god?
Yes.

If you go back and carefully read my post, you will notice I give explicit agreement to allowing everyone to have their point of view.

And also I have not taken to personal attacks or insulted anyones intelligence, as you seem to claim. If I have, I would appreciate it carefully pointed out instead of recklessly insinuated.

If you don't agree with what I am saying, then make a point against it.

If you go back and carefully read my post, you will notice I give explicit agreement to allowing everyone to have their point of view.

And also I have not taken to personal attacks or insulted anyones intelligence, as you seem to claim. If I have, I would appreciate it carefully pointed out instead of recklessly insinuated.

If you don't agree with what I am saying, then make a point against it.

You seemed to say in your earlier post that the act of believing in a god means that the practitioner has decided that logic and reason are stupid and should be given the boot. That seems to me like an enormous overgeneralization and a bit of a jab at theists who have given thought to why they should/shouldn't believe. I know plenty of people who have a very methodic, thought-out approach to their system of beliefs and present reasons for faith in a god. I'm not going to bring in specifics right now for a few different reasons but what I'm getting at is that thought and religion aren't always mutually exclusive. I remember the big cons list you gave earlier and I'm pretty sure you said you experienced those cons firsthand, in which case imo your anti-religious sentiments are justified 100%. However, I hope that you don't believe that everyone that believes in a god acts/believes in the same way as the ones that formed the basis for that cons list.

You seemed to say in your earlier post that the act of believing in a god means that the practitioner has decided that logic and reason are stupid and should be given the boot.

No, rather that religious belief is not based in reason or logic and that anyone claiming that they are is either misled or purposefully misleading.

The reason I can say this is that there is no good argument or rationale for the existence of a deity. When you ask people 'why do you believe?' they either say 'I dunno I just do' or 'it's not possible that all this came from nothing' or something similar. They don't rely on a logical argument or the weight of evidence to support their belief. They just believe.

That's all fine and well and I'm not here to convert people or call them names and say they shouldn't believe, but rather to try and help them realize that their belief, however precious to them, is not based in anything substantial.

That is, no more than believing in Santa Claus.

That might be hard to hear for some, and it prompts most to either have an angry outburst, quote the bible or leave the room (an innocent man never flees the scene of a crime do they?), but truth is oftentimes...unforgiving.

There are plenty of otherwise rational, logical and intelligent theists as there are many illogical, irrational and dumb atheists.

No, rather that religious belief is not based in reason or logic and that anyone claiming that they are is either misled or purposefully misleading.

The reason I can say this is that there is no good argument or rationale for the existence of a deity. When you ask people 'why do you believe?' they either say 'I dunno I just do' or 'it's not possible that all this came from nothing' or something similar. They don't rely on a logical argument or the weight of evidence to support their belief. They just believe.

I assume this has been your personal experience. As stated earlier, I have had experience to the contrary. I'm not saying that my experience overrides yours, but it seems to me like you believe your own personal sample size to be an adequate representation of the entire religious population, a point which I contest. It would be like me listening to the biased, factually incorrect and fundamentally wrong offhand comments made by the two atheist dudes in my Biology class and concluding from that experience that all atheists are tools.(A fact that is obviously, overwhelmingly incorrect.)

That's all fine and well and I'm not here to convert people or call them names and say they shouldn't believe, but rather to try and help them realize that their belief, however precious to them, is not based in anything substantial.

Substance is entirely subjective.

That is, no more than believing in Santa Claus.

That's a seriously unfair comparison imo.

That might be hard to hear for some, and it prompts most to either have an angry outburst, quote the bible or leave the room (an innocent man never flees the scene of a crime do they?), but truth is oftentimes...unforgiving.

While I agree that asking someone to defend their methodology is almost always doing them a favor, it seems like we'll be at a permanent impasse becuase of our own vastly different experiences with religion and religious people. The relationships that I have had with religious people (Christian and otherwise) have been some of the best I've had, and I'll hazard a guess at saying that you've had a terrible time dealing with religion. We can easily go back and forth ad infinitum citing contrasting examples, but it'll likely get nowhere, besides it's exams week and I need to hit the books. Feel free to counter anything and everything I've said, just be aware that I'll continue to read, but will not be posting in this thread any further.

There are plenty of otherwise rational, logical and intelligent theists as there are many illogical, irrational and dumb atheists.

If there's one thing we can rely on, it's that dumb does not discriminate

FWIW, I have a great deal of respect for you, as well as everyone else that has made good posts ITT. Reading and trying to understand your points of view has been a very valuable exercise imo.

Just wanted to say I'm enjoying reading the thoughts ITT too. Let's keep it civil and make some actual good points back and forth and shock the world

(I'm not saying anyone hasn't been civil, just saying let's keep it that way.)

I'm sorry if someone has already posted this. I just didn't feel like going through all of the posts.

http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618680004

I assume this has been your personal experience. As stated earlier, I have had experience to the contrary. I'm not saying that my experience overrides yours, but it seems to me like you believe your own personal sample size to be an adequate representation of the entire religious population, a point which I contest. It would be like me listening to the biased, factually incorrect and fundamentally wrong offhand comments made by the two atheist dudes in my Biology class and concluding from that experience that all atheists are tools.(A fact that is obviously, overwhelmingly incorrect.)

Rather than dodging the point I made, which was that there are no logical or evidential arguments for religious belief...why not just give me one?

Substance is entirely subjective.

Not in the context we are discussing. The substance and weight of an argument is in it's logical consistency or in the weight of empirical evidence supporting it. As I said before, if you want to exclude religious belief from that context you have to support your claim. If not, then you must admit it is an empty assertion. There isn't really any other option here.

That's a seriously unfair comparison imo.

They are quantitatively similar. If you are not fond of the analogy, replace Santa Claus with anything you wish that is not supported by logical argument, not disprovable and has no evidence of being true. Pink Elephants, invisible men, whatever you wish.

While I agree that asking someone to defend their methodology is almost always doing them a favor, it seems like we'll be at a permanent impasse becuase of our own vastly different experiences with religion and religious people. The relationships that I have had with religious people (Christian and otherwise) have been some of the best I've had, and I'll hazard a guess at saying that you've had a terrible time dealing with religion.

Not at all. I hesitatingly gave up Christianity. In many ways I still wish there was a god so I am by no means an anti-theist. But when I found it was incompatible with both my reasoning mind and evidence to the contrary (specifically Christian doctrine) I had to reject the god hypothesis.

What has happened since about 1940 is that due to the strength of atheistic arguments, the Christian conception people argue for is getting more and more watered down as time goes on to the point now where the vast majority of Christian interpretations have become untenable. Theism, when watered down even more and quite broadly considered, is potentially tenable but with major concessions to how we gather information.

We can easily go back and forth ad infinitum citing contrasting examples, but it'll likely get nowhere, besides it's exams week and I need to hit the books. Feel free to counter anything and everything I've said, just be aware that I'll continue to read, but will not be posting in this thread any further.

It's not really back and forth at all. None of the points I raised have been contested. I'm looking for one reasonable argument for theism which has so far eluded this thread.

FWIW, I have a great deal of respect for you, as well as everyone else that has made good posts ITT. Reading and trying to understand your points of view has been a very valuable exercise imo.

I appreciate that very much, thank you.



PS- If anyone is interested in exploring the philosophical arguments for and against atheism, this is a very excellent website

http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/ChristianityIndex.html

Really quickly,
I had this on while I wrote my essays, found it to be pretty neat: The God Delusion Debate

Supporters of either side will find plenty to like about it imo.

Really quickly,
I had this on while I wrote my essays, found it to be pretty neat: The God Delusion Debate

Supporters of either side will find plenty to like about it imo.

What a horrible excuse for a debate.

What a horrible excuse for a debate.

Really, it's just billed as a debate to sell tickets and it really shouldn't be viewed as one. There really isn't much of a debate between Dawkins and Lennox in the sense that there is no sense of antagonism or competition that would usually accompany a debate. I found it to be more collaborative than antagonistic.

The reason I thought it was neat was because Dawkins and Lennox cover many of the topics of Dawkins's book, and I thought it was really informative.

It's not really back and forth at all. None of the points I raised have been contested. I'm looking for one reasonable argument for theism which has so far eluded this thread.

Did you consider Gödel? If you add laws of thermodynamics it seems to me that God might exists but we cannot talk to him and he cannot talk to us.

Edit: Not an argument for God but for the possibility of a devine existence.

What a horrible excuse for a debate.

And why is that?