Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Atheists must have been hurt by religion at some point.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 201-225 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 25, 2011 10:25:59 AM PST
Newbomb Turk says:
"Christians really DO meet the Lord, much to your surprise."

Can you describe how without using figurative language?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 25, 2011 10:55:15 AM PST
Secularman says:
Anonymous guy says:
Faith leads to revelation. Christians really DO meet the Lord, much to your surprise.

Me: I don't believe you. Obviously you're making that up or you're delusional.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 25, 2011 10:59:13 AM PST
Secularman says:
Anonymous guy says:
That the lowlifes and scum of the earth turned to Jesus is no coincidence Secularman. You are perhaps amongst the lucky few whose moral character is impeccable. I am not and need God for it be remotely close to yours. Just be thankful you are not like me.

AG: LOL! I like this!

Me: That's not surprising, the whole statement is fallacious.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 25, 2011 11:03:06 AM PST
Secularman says:
Nicely done Puck...

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 25, 2011 11:16:09 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 25, 2011 11:17:54 AM PST
B. Young says:
Secularman says: "I respectfully disagree. Faith is the opposite of logic and the only arguments for belief in gods are based on faith."

*sigh*, both of these statements are false. If Faith is the opposite of anything, it is the opposite of disbelief and distrust. At a (very big) stretch you might be able to argue that it is the opposite of *proof*, but that is a long, long way from being the "opposite of Logic". (The regularity with which people confuse "logic" with "proof" in these forums is very disturbing to me, but that's probably because of my degree in Logic.)

As to the second, the philosophical arguments for the existence of a Supreme Being are no more based in Faith than the arguments against it are. Further, these two things, Faith and Logic and not in any way exclusionary (though you might be able to argue that Faith and *Proof* are). All logical arguments are based on assumptions. Any belief in the material or physical truth of any conclusion founded in logical argument must therefore entail an implicit belief in those same assumptions. That meets the criteria for one of the definitions of Faith.

Thus ALL logical arguments intended to persuade as to the nature of what is true and real, inherently incorporate elements of faith, even those that argue against the existence of a Supreme Being.

continuing:
"... People keep telling me that there are arguments for belief that are based on logic and reason, and I'm familiar with the classics, but I've yet to see one. If you could at least give me a hint at which argument you think is based on logic and reason I will be glad to read up on it."

Thats a bit confusing, you're familiar with the classics but you've yet to read one? (scratches head). Well, the classics are the Cosmological Argument, The Teleological Argument and the Ontological Argument. I personally prefer the Temporal Dilemma myself, though it's probably hard to find it under that name.

-- Barry

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 25, 2011 11:20:42 AM PST
"No, nothing so extreme, but it has prevented me from being promiscuous, unfaithful, profane, deeply angry and insecure, violent and a coward among other things."

Some of us manage to do all that without a belief in a Deity. I mean to disrespect or insult to you in any way... I just want to make it crystal clear that morality is not dependent on one being a theist. Indeed, a great many atrocities have been enacted by people who believed in a Deity, or worse, believed their atrocities were excused or even required by their Deity.

The fact that I'm an atheist tells you nothing about my morality or my ethics.

The fact that someone is a theist doesn't tell you much about their morality or their ethics.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 25, 2011 11:23:04 AM PST
I wouldn't call theism illogical so much as based on unsupported (or, at best, poorly supported) assertions.

Is this a fair statement: "If one had credible evidence, one would not need faith." ?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 25, 2011 11:26:47 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 25, 2011 11:37:05 AM PST
Secularman Says: "Can you provide an argument based on reason and logic for God's existence? I've never heard one."

B. Young: "Dude, **seriously**?!?"

I've heard many, many arguments.

Each and every one suffered from one (or more) of the following flaws:
1. Unsupported assertions
2. Begging the Question
3. Hasty Generalization
4. Confirmation Bias
5. various errors of logic
6. various errors of fact

Not a *single* "Argument for God's existence" has withstood informed, critical scrutiny.

I will happily believe that a Deity or Deities exist... as soon as credible evidence of that existence is provided.

Posted on Jan 25, 2011 11:31:02 AM PST
B. Young says:
I would prefer the more traditional "Proof destroys Faith."

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 25, 2011 11:41:02 AM PST
B. Young says:
Michael Altarriba says:
"Secularman Says: "Can you provide an argument based on reason and logic for God's existence? I've never heard one."

B. Young: "Dude, **seriously**?!?"

...

Michael Altarriba: Not a *single* "Argument for God's existence" has withstood informed, critical scrutiny."

Perhaps not in your judgement, but that was not the point that I was arguing. I was arguing that there are in fact many "Argument for God's existence" that are based in logic and reasoning. Whether they are correct, valid, well-founded, or conclusive is an entirely separate matter.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 25, 2011 11:47:46 AM PST
Michael Altarriba: Is this a fair statement: "If one had credible evidence, one would not need faith." ?

Yes. The need for faith would be replaced by the certainty of knowledge.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 25, 2011 11:56:17 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 9, 2011 9:47:39 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 25, 2011 11:57:47 AM PST
Ohio dude says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 25, 2011 11:59:10 AM PST
Ohio dude says:
Supernaturally.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 25, 2011 12:00:20 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 9, 2011 9:47:39 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 25, 2011 12:00:58 PM PST
Ohio dude says:
Anonymous guy says:
Faith leads to revelation. Christians really DO meet the Lord, much to your surprise.

Me: I don't believe you. Obviously you're making that up or you're delusional.

AG: Well, that's your right. I would be shocked if you believed me, actually.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 25, 2011 12:01:22 PM PST
Anonymous guy: Atheists run this forum.

Really? So why do they allow you here? Comic relief?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 25, 2011 12:02:14 PM PST
Ohio dude says:
Anonymous guy says:
That the lowlifes and scum of the earth turned to Jesus is no coincidence Secularman. You are perhaps amongst the lucky few whose moral character is impeccable. I am not and need God for it be remotely close to yours. Just be thankful you are not like me.

AG: LOL! I like this!

Me: That's not surprising, the whole statement is fallacious.

AG: Only in your own mind, buddy. It was a great Christian comment. Very inspiring, IMO.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 25, 2011 12:04:01 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 25, 2011 12:27:27 PM PST
CY says:
R3 then!

Yes agreed. Some debating tactics can have more to do with strategy and sleight of tongue than sound argument - but I don't think theists have a monopoly on such techniques. Though I'm sure thy use them I doubt it's a defining characteristic of a theist.

The key thing about our discussion and all our discussions here R3 is the word we have both been using - 'think'. You 'think' atheists fall into 2 categories, but where is the support for your argument? In truth I don't really expect a whole host of support because it's a reasonable conclusion, though I don't agree with it entirely. I 'think' both our arguments have the same support - our thoughts. I don't think people 'reject' God out of laziness - She's just not a consideration, not a factor, not an interest. nothing to reject because nothing was considered. I've met people like that.

I think it's reasonable to conclude that there are a variety of theists and atheists - because both are human beings! You missed a category of atheists - those who reject God because of an emotional process which they have rationalized. Atheists aren't another species R3, they are human like the rest of us.

As for the my audacious comment on women - it is a compliment, women are decidedly more intuitive - though not less self-centred. You are just better at getting men to pay attention to you when they have no idea what you are doing. ;)

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 25, 2011 12:04:26 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 9, 2011 9:47:39 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 25, 2011 12:05:43 PM PST
CY says:
LOL. Ahh Analyst, bless you.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 25, 2011 12:07:38 PM PST
CY says:
You Tube is the media right? Well it's a medium anyway - I mean the internet is a 'series of tubes' right, so You Tube is like...one tube...I guess?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 25, 2011 12:08:41 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 25, 2011 12:12:48 PM PST
Secularman says:
You are correct, faith is belief without proof, not logic. Logic can be flawed, leading to belief in supernatural magic without having proof.

B.Young says: Thus ALL logical arguments intended to persuade as to the nature of what is true and real, inherently incorporate elements of faith, even those that argue against the existence of a Supreme Being.

Me: I'm not arguing against the existence of a supreme being, that would be like arguing against the existence of invisible pink unicorns, it's just silly. I'm arguing that there is no proof and therefore, no logical reason, to believe in supreme beings.

BY: Well, the classics are the Cosmological Argument, The Teleological Argument and the Ontological Argument.

Me: Indeed and none of them are very convincing or based on evidence of any sort. They're only intriguing if you're susceptable to believing in the supernatural based purely on faith.

BY: I personally prefer the Temporal Dilemma myself, though it's probably hard to find it under that name.

Me: What name would one find it under or is it a secret?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 25, 2011 12:08:42 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 9, 2011 9:47:39 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 25, 2011 12:10:51 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 9, 2011 9:47:39 AM PDT]
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  183
Total posts:  3113
Initial post:  Jan 21, 2011
Latest post:  Apr 7, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 10 customers

Search Customer Discussions