Atheists can have faith in false things. All faith will make weak arguments seem strong. That's my point.

I haven't seen you in a while - enjoy your stuff. — EricH

There's a lot lately.

Uh, oh, 'God' is joining the thread:


(Click to get it to move as kind of 3D)

That's my point. — Gregory

That's my point, too.

At least Jesus didn't fall from his horse. Other than that, as I say, same difference. :wink:

That's not God. That looks like my friend who is dying of lung cancer (well, back in his good days)

Jesus said God abandoned him on the cross. He became an atheist as he died and might have been saved. I hope for immortality and want people to be saved. There is a huge divide in my country between pro-choicers and Christians. Both movements I hope to see end and this because they are corrupt

Bad ideas are bad ideas. — DingoJones

I've started a few threads on the topic of god, and on first glance would be taken as arguing that he doesn't exist.

In several places I have made it clear that the purpose of these threads is not to argue for atheism, but to demonstrate that poverty of the sort of arguments that are involved.

There is a huge divide in my country between pro-choicers and Christians. — Gregory

What country is that if I may ask?

usa

In several places I have made it clear that the purpose of these threads is not to argue for atheism, but to demonstrate that poverty of the sort of arguments that are involved. — Banno

I must agree on the poverty of arguments bit. On both sides.

Unfortunately, different people have different levels or degrees of knowledge and understanding of the issues involved (in any discussion) and this can lead to unnecessary frustration and hostility. A more philosophical and detached attitude might help, but it won't change much about the poverty of arguments.

My point was that you shouodnt be so open minded that you believe anything. Skepticism is just as valuable as an open mind, finding a balance between them is key to not believing in nonsense and/or incorrect things. — DingoJones

Open minded means I'm open to the possibility that something is true. Sceptical means I am open to the possibility something is false. Neither leads to belief or disbelief, of themselves. I can be entirely open minded to a possibility, yet find no compelling reason to believe the possibility is an actuality. I can be entirely skeptical of a possibility being an actuality, yet not believe it is not an actuality.

That sounds very open minded to me.

And it seems that your mind hasn't fallen out - not yet in any case.

So you must be doing something right ....

So, would you say that the main dividing line is between pro-Choicers and Christians?

Yes

But are pro-choicers not also Christians?

I engage with the argument and logic parts of these questions. In politics you have to take into account both sides

Open minded means I'm open to the possibility that something is true. Sceptical means I am open to the possibility something is false. Neither leads to belief or disbelief, of themselves. I can be entirely open minded to a possibility, yet find no compelling reason to believe the possibility is an actuality. I can be entirely skeptical of a possibility being an actuality, yet not believe it is not an actuality. — Yohan

I can agree with most of that, but I think skepticism is more than being open to something being false. I would define it more like assuming something isnt true until there are good reasons to believe it is true. The skeptic says “prove it.”.

I've started a few threads on the topic of god, and on first glance would be taken as arguing that he doesn't exist.

In several places I have made it clear that the purpose of these threads is not to argue for atheism, but to demonstrate that poverty of the sort of arguments that are involved. — Banno

But of course by showing there are no good arguments for theism, the remaining position can only be atheism.
Thats rather the point isnt it? Atheism requires no argument.

Scepticism and acceptance are neither here nor there. What counts is critique.

I am not even preaching about God or faith. I am talking about open mindedness, human decency and respecting your fell peers to think for themselves. — SteveMinjares

Pretty sure you called me a Nazi there Gandhi

I am not even preaching about God or faith. I am talking about open mindedness, human decency and respecting your fell[ow] peers to think for themselves. — SteveMinjares

Yeah, well, here you go ...

(A) Is theism true or not true?

Iff theism is not true, then atheism is true.

(B) Is theism, on the other hand, imaginary?

:point: If theism is imaginary, then theist religion is make-believe (LARPing); and, in this case, freethinkers are ignostic at most rather than atheistic.

:point: In order to defeat – dismiss – atheism, believers either ought to give evidence in support of theism or concede theism is merely imaginary.

Otherwise, evidence-free beliefs such as (untrue/imaginary) theism ought to be excluded from evidence-based public policy deliberations. (Methodological naturalism)

Coda: Some freethinkers, however, claim theism is not true and that this untruth can be soundly demonstrated.

An example of a respectful, intellectual encounter of a freethinker (doubter) with a theist (believer).

For the most part, people believe in God for very poor reasons that are easily refuted. Disbelieving in the sky-daddy God is not all together very impressive, it's like shooting fish in a barrel, pretty low-hanging fruit, but doing so can make people feel superior just like winning any other argument can, no matter how stupid it is.

That being said, this is a philosophy forum, so God-stuff is fair game to bring up. I just personally wish the discussion quality was better, and the arguments given for either side more thought-provoking.

the remaining position can only be atheism. — DingoJones

SO failing to prove that the Snark is a Boojum is reason to believe there are no Boojums.

Is

That being said, this is a philosophy forum, so God-stuff is fair game to bring up. I just personally wish the discussion quality was better, and the arguments given for either side more thought-provoking. — darthbarracuda

Is not about God is the insinuation that all faith-base thinkers are stupid people and stero-typing them as low intelligent individuals.

No what I meant was that if there are no good arguments for theism, and by that I mean convincing ones, then you're going to end up at atheism.

Well, "faith-based" believers are free to demonstrate that they're not "stupid people ... low intelligent individuals" on a site dedicated to philosophical discussions by providing sufficient warrant for their theistic assertions (or conceding that their theism is merely imaginary, or just stuff made-up to make themselves feel better/less anxious).

I noticed an increase in topic of God in a disturbing way. I know I will face discriminator remarks cause of it oh well. — SteveMinjares

Threads like this are like tossing a bit of bloodied meat into the Piranha River. :naughty:

Do you have any specific examples in which you think someone on here has defended these stereotypes? I wonder if there is some psychological projection going on here.

Otherwise intelligent people can believe in things for very poor reasons. I think that if you are confident in your beliefs and have a stable sense of positive self-esteem, then whatever stereotypes people think of you should not worry you too much. If someone is stereotyping you, that says more about them then it does about you.

If you are sensitive to what other people think of you, this could mean that you are worried they are right. Generally speaking, insults only hurt if you fear there might be some degree of truth to them, otherwise they just don't matter. This fear could be grounded in reality, low self-esteem/self-understanding, or a combination thereof.

There have been times when I have been called stupid, and I didn't care because I knew I wasn't being stupid. Other times, I have been called stupid, and I did care because I wasn't very confident in what I believed. And then finally other times I have been called stupid, and I cared because I realized, yeah I was being really stupid.

You shouldn’t care what others think and believe. — SteveMinjares

When any belief is allowed to fester without opposition you get atrocities like the crusades and Nazism. You should care what others think and believe, because when too many think it it will affect you. "It makes me happy to believe this" is not a good excuse for believing, say, that all the Jews should die is it? So why is it a good excuse for believing in God?

I'm not evangelical about it but I do feel intellectually duty-bound, so to speak, to exorcise and dispel the Old Shadow (sky daddy, zombie-rabbi-on-a-stick, baba yaga) whenever proselytizers & woo-thumpers conjure It (him), especially in politics. — 180 Proof

That's it. God beliefs aka religions save Buddhism if you ignore Hinduism absorbing it tend to come with a lot of rules, dos and don'ts that cover every aspect of our lives, it's, as the late Christopher Hitchens calls it, a total solution that micromanages a person's life from womb to tomb, cradle to grave.

We being naturally free-spirited tend not to like rules and religions come with boatloads of them. The response is we'll follow the rules if God exists because if God doesn't there really is no point to it - it would be a complete waste of our time. This in no way implies those who have such an attitude want to do away with all the rules in religion - throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not on their to-do list. The rules have to make sense and they need to be reasonable.

In other words, God must exist if religion is to become part of our lives and it's patently clear that it wants exactly that. Thus people argue about the existence/nonexistence of a God. A lot is at stake - if religion were to be proven false then all religious people would be living a lie, they would've squandered away their lives. Not something a level-headed person would want to do, right?

That being said, this is a philosophy forum, so God-stuff is fair game to bring up. — darthbarracuda

I agree. The topic of God is controversial. Nietzsche didn't even bother proving God's existence. He declared God is dead. It is a good topic for philosophical debate. I feel that philosophers must rise above their faith and beliefs, and engage the debates from rational aspects. If one puts his faith and beliefs before reasoning, then he should be in church or temple, not in philosophical forums.