Common Christian/Muslim argument: I have an answer and you don't!

[Rhea]

Maybe I'll make some business cards to hand out with this one one side,



and on the other side

"Because you're too much of an arrogant ass
to understand that you're the 8,000th religionist to bug me."

Seriously, why can't you all keep a "do not preach" registry and if one of you has tried it, the rest will respect the "no, thank you"

(also, I love how clean and pink that guy's leg is. Christians never do care about authenticity, do they?)

 

[Keith&Co.]

My cousin worked in an office with three people who tried to SAVE her in rotation.
She made a chart, quoting Titus 3:10, that says to admonish the heathens twice, and if that doesn't convert them, leave them alone. Each Christain was named, with two ovals like the answers in a ScanTron test.
Each time they mentioned Jesus to her, she filled in an oval. Third time, they were ignoring God's word...

 

[Rhea]

My cousin worked in an office with three people who tried to SAVE her in rotation.
She made a chart, quoting Titus 3:10, that says to admonish the heathens twice, and if that doesn't convert them, leave them alone. Each Christain was named, with two ovals like the answers in a ScanTron test.
Each time they mentioned Jesus to her, she filled in an oval. Third time, they were ignoring God's word...

Why should they get two ovals per christian, though? That seems monstrously unfair.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well, you can't hold Susie responsible for Gene violating Titus...
And two chances for three Christians could be over ina week.

 

[Underseer]

There are a lot of Christian and Muslim arguments that boil down to "I have an answer and you don't, therefore my answer is correct."

My position - even if I wasn't certain - would be that a weak hypothesis is better than no hypothesis. But if you're OK with ignorance, suit yourself.

There's not one bible verse which says "evangelise by providing proof to the standard demanded by uber-skeptics" And nowhere does God say you will be punished for not persuading or convincing atheists. So if the biblical theist won't be believed....
#dust/sandles

Well, I have an answer for why there is a God, but you don't have an answer for why there is a God.

A weak hypothesis is better than no hypothesis, but if you're OK with ignorance, then suit yourself.

 

[Underseer]

On a more serious note, Lion has illustrated exactly how religious beliefs came into existence in the first place.

He would rather believe something that's wrong than wait for definitive proof.

Lightning proves Zeus. How else do you explain lightning? The ancient Greeks could not possibly have understood the correct answer because Benjamin Franklin was thousands of years in their future. An intellectually honest person in Ancient Greece would have said "I don't know where lightning comes from." Someone in ancient Greece like Lion would have accepted that lightning is proof of Zeus because that was the best possible explanation, and hey, accepting a truth claim that is not supported is better than admitting that you don't know something, right? A "weak hypothesis is better than no hypothesis" is how he phrased it?

Religion exists because many humans would rather just make something up and believe any crazy thing than admit that they don't know.

My Japanese ancestors once believed that earthquakes are caused by a giant magical fish. How else do you explain earthquakes? Seismographs were far in their future, so they couldn't possibly have understood the real answer. The giant magical fish really was the best available explanation to those who would rather believe something wrong than admit that they don't know something.

 

[skepticalbip]

There are a lot of Christian and Muslim arguments that boil down to "I have an answer and you don't, therefore my answer is correct."

My position - even if I wasn't certain - would be that a weak hypothesis is better than no hypothesis. But if you're OK with ignorance, suit yourself.

Ignorance is bad but someone acknowledging their ignorance to themselves is damned good. It encourages them to work to learn so they can eliminate their ignorance, replacing that ignorance with understanding.

Those who grasp at and defend a "weak hypothesis" so they can deny their ignorance to themselves will remain in ignorance... and ignorance is bad.

 

[Random Person]

There are a lot of Christian and Muslim arguments that boil down to "I have an answer and you don't, therefore my answer is correct."

My position - even if I wasn't certain - would be that a weak hypothesis is better than no hypothesis. But if you're OK with ignorance, suit yourself.

Ignorance is bad but someone acknowledging their ignorance to themselves is damned good. It encourages them to work to learn so they can eliminate their ignorance, replacing that ignorance with understanding.

Those who grasp at and defend a "weak hypothesis" so they can deny their ignorance to themselves will remain in ignorance... and ignorance is bad.

A "no Hypothesis" is less ignorant than a weak hypothesis? It seems to me that the weak hypothesis person has something to work with to become more knowledgeable whereas the "no hypothesis person is stuck in not knowing.

 

[Lion IRC]

On a more serious note, Lion has illustrated exactly how religious beliefs came into existence in the first place.

He would rather believe something that's wrong than wait for definitive proof.

So I see you can't win an argument against what I actually think.
I don't believe in something that's wrong and I'm not waiting for definitive proof.

Your disbelief doesn't invalidate my worldview especially when I'm suspicious that yours is wilfull disbelief.

 

[Rhea]

On a more serious note, Lion has illustrated exactly how religious beliefs came into existence in the first place.

He would rather believe something that's wrong than wait for definitive proof.

So I see you can't win an argument against what I actually think.
I don't believe in something that's wrong and I'm not waiting for definitive proof.

Your disbelief doesn't invalidate my worldview especially when I'm suspicious that yours is wilfull disbelief.

You believe in something (very VERY strongly) that has exactly zero evidence supporting it.
You cannot truthfully make the claim that it's not wrong. Or, put positively; To be truthful you MUST claim that it is possibly wrong, since it has zero evidence supporting it beyond "faith" and "belief".


And the rest of us observing, If you're a freakin' GOD, then surely you can gin up some evidence that is testable!

I may not be able to create a universe and make humans out of mud or ribs (I can make them out of sperm, tho), but I can definitely set up an experiment wherein multiple double blind observations and analyses can demonstrate that I exist with statistical significance. They are, like, the easiest possible experiments to conduct - you wouldn't even get 3rd place for doing it in a grade school science fair because it's trivially easy.

But your god can't seem to pull that one together, not even with his parent's help.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There are a lot of Christian and Muslim arguments that boil down to "I have an answer and you don't, therefore my answer is correct."

My position - even if I wasn't certain - would be that a weak hypothesis is better than no hypothesis. But if you're OK with ignorance, suit yourself.

There's not one bible verse which says "evangelise by providing proof to the standard demanded by uber-skeptics" And nowhere does God say you will be punished for not persuading or convincing atheists. So if the biblical theist won't be believed....
#dust/sandles

Well, I have an answer for why there is a God, but you don't have an answer for why there is a God.

A weak hypothesis is better than no hypothesis, but if you're OK with ignorance, then suit yourself.

I'm okay with ignorance. It's ignorance of one's ignorance that gets my attention. Religion is a good example of the latter.

So I do understand why there are religious people. Religious people, generally speaking, are people who think they have an answer when they actually do not.

 

[Underseer]

Well, I have an answer for why there is a God, but you don't have an answer for why there is a God.

A weak hypothesis is better than no hypothesis, but if you're OK with ignorance, then suit yourself.

I'm okay with ignorance. It's ignorance of one's ignorance that gets my attention. Religion is a good example of the latter.

So I do understand why there are religious people. Religious people, generally speaking, are people who think they have an answer when they actually do not.

No, they are correct in observing that they have an answer.

The problem is that they are not making any effort to find out if the answer is correct. Often, the only honest answer is "I don't know," and they have a nasty habit of accepting any old answer in order to avoid giving the honest answer.

 

[Underseer]

On a more serious note, Lion has illustrated exactly how religious beliefs came into existence in the first place.

He would rather believe something that's wrong than wait for definitive proof.

So I see you can't win an argument against what I actually think.
I don't believe in something that's wrong and I'm not waiting for definitive proof.

Your disbelief doesn't invalidate my worldview especially when I'm suspicious that yours is wilfull disbelief.

So I see you can't win an argument against what I actually think.

I don't believe in something that's wrong, and I'm not waiting for definitive proof.

Your disbelief doesn't invalidate my worldview especially when I'm suspicious that yours is willful disbelief.

I have an answer to the question "Why does God exist?" and you don't. I'm beginning to suspect that yours is willful disbelief in the space goat because you don't want to admit that I have an answer and you don't.

As per your own argument, I shouldn't have to provide absolute proof of the space goat. The fact that I have an answer and you don't should be enough.

So I'll ask you one more time:

Why does God exist?

 

[skepticalbip]

Well, I have an answer for why there is a God, but you don't have an answer for why there is a God.

A weak hypothesis is better than no hypothesis, but if you're OK with ignorance, then suit yourself.

I'm okay with ignorance. It's ignorance of one's ignorance that gets my attention. Religion is a good example of the latter.

So I do understand why there are religious people. Religious people, generally speaking, are people who think they have an answer when they actually do not.

No, they are correct in observing that they have an answer.

The problem is that they are not making any effort to find out if the answer is correct. Often, the only honest answer is "I don't know," and they have a nasty habit of accepting any old answer in order to avoid giving the honest answer.

It is worse. They have a habit of embracing and avidly defending any old answer.

 

[Lion IRC]

On a more serious note, Lion has illustrated exactly how religious beliefs came into existence in the first place.

He would rather believe something that's wrong than wait for definitive proof.

So I see you can't win an argument against what I actually think.
I don't believe in something that's wrong and I'm not waiting for definitive proof.

Your disbelief doesn't invalidate my worldview especially when I'm suspicious that yours is wilfull disbelief.

So I see you can't win an argument against what I actually think.

I don't believe in something that's wrong, and I'm not waiting for definitive proof.

Your disbelief doesn't invalidate my worldview especially when I'm suspicious that yours is willful disbelief.

I have an answer to the question "Why does God exist?" and you don't. I'm beginning to suspect that yours is willful disbelief in the space goat because you don't want to admit that I have an answer and you don't.

As per your own argument, I shouldn't have to provide absolute proof of the space goat. The fact that I have an answer and you don't should be enough.

So I'll ask you one more time:

Why does God exist?

Make up your mind. You're asking me! Are you comfortable in your worldview or not?

I don't ask you why God exists. I already know.
He exists because He wants to.
...unlike Anthony Bourdain

 

[Underseer]

So I see you can't win an argument against what I actually think.

I don't believe in something that's wrong, and I'm not waiting for definitive proof.

Your disbelief doesn't invalidate my worldview especially when I'm suspicious that yours is willful disbelief.

I have an answer to the question "Why does God exist?" and you don't. I'm beginning to suspect that yours is willful disbelief in the space goat because you don't want to admit that I have an answer and you don't.

As per your own argument, I shouldn't have to provide absolute proof of the space goat. The fact that I have an answer and you don't should be enough.

So I'll ask you one more time:

Why does God exist?

Make up your mind. You're asking me! Are you comfortable in your worldview or not?

I don't ask you why God exists. I already know.
He exists because He wants to.
...unlike Anthony Bourdain

Of course you want to avoid talking about why god exists.

It's understandable.

You know that I have an answer and you don't, so you are uncomfortable about asking the question. That is why you hate the space goat.

So I'll ask you again:

Why does God exist?

Your disbelief won't cause the space goat to stop existing, you know. Are you going to wait around for absolute scientific proof for the spacegoat? I thought you were comfortable with accepting tentative answers because having an unverified answer is better than being ignorant and having no answer at all.

Well, I have an answer and you don't.

Now suddenly, you're not OK with having a tentative answer and are demanding absolute proof of something even though you know that I have an answer to the biggest possible question and you don't.

Funny how your position reverses when the same exact logic is applied to a different conclusion.

 

[Lion IRC]

I already answered that question. And it's not my tentative view. I'm emphatic.

 

[Underseer]

The existence of the space goat is not a scientific truth claim, therefore it is wrong for you to demand scientific proof for the space goat.

- - - Updated - - -

I already answered that question. And it's not my tentative view. I'm emphatic.

Of course. You think that your disbelief will cause the space goat to stop existing because you don't want to admit that I have an answer and you don't.

Why does god exist rather than not exist?

Please answer the question.

 

[Rhea]

He’s angry with the Space Goat and wants to deny her so he can be his own Space Goat.

 

[Lion IRC]

The existence of the space goat is not a scientific truth claim, therefore it is wrong for you to demand scientific proof for the space goat.

- - - Updated - - -

I already answered that question. And it's not my tentative view. I'm emphatic.

Of course. You think that your disbelief will cause the space goat to stop existing because you don't want to admit that I have an answer and you don't.

Why does god exist rather than not exist?

Please repeat your answer the question.

OK
I'll repeat my answer as per post #35
God exists because He wants to.
Also worth noting that we exist because He wants us to.

ETA - my answer won't change even if you ask me a third time.