Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Cults don't hide their dogma.



Under threat of eternal damnation if they go.

I'd be atheist if I saw the some evidence to become one.

It is literally all around you. Again, no cult member thinks they are in a cult; it's always all those other people that are in cults. Those "mormons" "scientologists" "catholics" "jews" "islamists" "5 day adventists" "zoroastrians" "mithraists" "wiccans" etc.,etc.,etc.,etc. *insert every single cult to have ever existed here.*

Like the Trinity flaw, calling Christianity a cult is not a strong argument imo. IOW's I personally don't mind.

It's not an argument. It's just a fact.

 

[Learner]

I stand corrected. I don't mind being called a cult member. My fellow members of this cult don't meet with me in secret.

 

[skepticalbip]

So you are a polytheist then? There is the big guy god with a capital G and little gods with a small g like Jesus that was sent to "spread the word"? Sorta like the big god Zeus ruling and sending little gods to do his bidding.

Well, if we are to be on the same communication level then I will discuss the "language" you layout above. Polytheism it is then. Sure why not in this particular discussion. God with the capital G is thee boss. The little g's (not meaning the statues) must listen, unfortunately not all do (angels), as it says in scripture.

What you are calling "the statues" are representations of gods sorta like the crucifix is just a statue but is a representation of Jesus. Surely you don't think Christians are worshiping the crucifix do you?

 

[Learner]

So you are a polytheist then? There is the big guy god with a capital G and little gods with a small g like Jesus that was sent to "spread the word"? Sorta like the big god Zeus ruling and sending little gods to do his bidding.

Well, if we are to be on the same communication level then I will discuss the "language" you layout above. Polytheism it is then. Sure why not in this particular discussion. God with the capital G is thee boss. The little g's (not meaning the statues) must listen, unfortunately not all do (angels), as it says in scripture.

What you are calling "the statues" are representations of gods sorta like the crucifix is just a statue but is a representation of Jesus. Surely you don't think Christians are worshiping the crucifix do you?

There are Christians who do point out the kissing of statues feet similar to what you mention in your post. I don't agree with it either in opinion.

 

[rousseau]

Agreed, but you seem to be arguing for a chicken/egg relationship where the egg has no origin; it's just genetically encoded. But in this case, we're not talking about genetics; we're talking about memes, basically. And while we may have a biological (or, perhaps better, neurological) "propensity" for memetic thought, that doesn't mean that the content of the memes is necessarily the driver.

Religion certainly has an origin, it's just that the genetic encoding likely predates it, and the purpose of the genetic encoding has nothing to do with religion at all. Religion is just something we do as a by-product of how we've evolved to think, a natural outgrowth of our psychological need to resolve the conflicting elements of our existence - do I have to die, why are these bad things happening to me?

This kind of false optimism / delusion that our psychology creates for us seems to have more adaptive power than the alternative. Complacent people who follow cultural norms and produce babies are the most likely to procreate, and religion allows for a kind of optimism that makes this more likely.

Sure, authority figures telling mistruths is a part of it, but how many of those people truly believe the stories themselves, too? And why is it so difficult for these people to just stop for 5 minutes and wonder - maybe my beliefs aren't true? This happens sometimes, but usually it doesn't because the incentives aren't there. Why convince myself that Christianity is untrue, when I get so many cognitive benefits from it actually being true?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Agreed, but you seem to be arguing for a chicken/egg relationship where the egg has no origin; it's just genetically encoded. But in this case, we're not talking about genetics; we're talking about memes, basically. And while we may have a biological (or, perhaps better, neurological) "propensity" for memetic thought, that doesn't mean that the content of the memes is necessarily the driver.

Religion certainly has an origin, it's just that the genetic encoding likely predates it, and the purpose of the genetic encoding has nothing to do with religion at all. Religion is just something we do as a by-product of how we've evolved to think, a natural outgrowth of our psychological need to resolve the conflicting elements of our existence - do I have to die, why are these bad things happening to me?

This kind of false optimism / delusion that our psychology creates for us seems to have more adaptive power than the alternative. Complacent people who follow cultural norms and produce babies are the most likely to procreate, and religion allows for a kind of optimism that makes this more likely.

Sure, authority figures telling mistruths is a part of it, but how many of those people truly believe the stories themselves, too? And why is it so difficult for these people to just stop for 5 minutes and wonder - maybe my beliefs aren't true? This happens sometimes, but usually it doesn't because the incentives aren't there. Why convince myself that Christianity is untrue, when I get so many cognitive benefits from it actually being true?

Perhaps the acquisition and availability of knowledge will help change that, making it possible that folks like ourselves will actually have knowledge as opposed to the lies that are religious explanations. No stress needed. For many people it is absurd to think miracles happen, that dead men walk around and then fly around, ghosts, woo generally. Religion actually suppresses the acquisition of knowledge, Galileo being a great example.

Conservatives in the U.S. don't want public education because it potentially fosters diversity, acceptance and inquiry, experiment, etc., all things anathema to religion in the long run.

 

[remez]

That was what I thought about the atrib’s question to begin with. The context as presented was why do Christians proclaim miracles are reasonable. Post 236

Is it really that hard to articulate a good reason for why you believe the Christ mythology?

That was NOT atrib's "context" in the slightest. The "context" is, what is YOUR "good reason for why YOU believe the Christ mythology?"

In no way is he asking about "reasonableness." He is asking for you to provide your reason for why you believe, not whether or not your belief is reasonable.
And further, that the reason be good and not merely something idiotic.

It strains all levels of credulity that you can't clearly see that.

What a tortured comprehension……..

That was NOT atrib's "context" in the slightest. The "context" is, what is YOUR "good reason for why YOU believe the Christ mythology?"

In no way is he asking about "reasonableness." He is asking for you to provide your reason for why you believe, not whether or not your belief is reasonable.

He agreed with my carefully contexted reason. Read my answer again ……..
Post 236

Is it really that hard to articulate a good reason for why you believe the Christ mythology?

Here is the articulation plain and simple.


The theist has reason to believe God exists and miraculously created this universe. Thus if God exists and created the universe, then walking on water would be a cinch for him. Really its that simple. If its reasonable that God exists then it reasonable miracles are possible.

Is that reasonable?

To clarify, I'm not asking if God's existence is reasonable. I'm asking you if you understand that miracles would be reasonable given that God exists? For that was the context of your query.

……He asked for a reason. I gave one. THEN THEN THEN I asked if the reason I gave was reasonable?
But note my clarification…..that followed my question……

To clarify, I'm not asking if God's existence is reasonable. I'm asking you if you understand that miracles would be reasonable given that God exists? For that was the context of your query.

He responded……

If a god exists that can create universes, then it would not be unreasonable to assume that this god could also suspend the laws of nature as it sees fit. I have no problem with that argument.

He agreed.

Thus if God exists then miracles are possible. Remember he was prompting Christians to articulate why miracles are reasonable to Christians. The “Christian” context is…..God exists.

That was it, UNTIL he continued with the assertion that all events have natural explanations, none have supernatural. Hence within the context of what I just answered, God exists, I presented the RA (resurrection argument) to begin a discussion addressing natural vs supernatural explanations of a specific historical event.

Then the rest of you lit upon me for assuming EoG. I do not assume EoG. I reason EoG. I just wasn’t doing that there. As I explained earlier….it would have opened an old can of worms. Again note my clarification was narrowing the context to EoG as given.
Further….
I have learned that it would be useless to advance any discussion for my evidence and reasoning for EoG. Because you and skep have dogmatically (and lazily) assumed I could have no reasons. Your pseudo get-out-of-jail pass is to assume that anything I would offer is special pleading on my part. I consider “that” poor reasoning…. a fallacy of special pleading on your part. So to ever engage you about EoG would only invite further insults. So let’s just simply agree to disagree and call it a truce.

Have a great summer.

 

[rousseau]

Agreed, but you seem to be arguing for a chicken/egg relationship where the egg has no origin; it's just genetically encoded. But in this case, we're not talking about genetics; we're talking about memes, basically. And while we may have a biological (or, perhaps better, neurological) "propensity" for memetic thought, that doesn't mean that the content of the memes is necessarily the driver.

Religion certainly has an origin, it's just that the genetic encoding likely predates it, and the purpose of the genetic encoding has nothing to do with religion at all. Religion is just something we do as a by-product of how we've evolved to think, a natural outgrowth of our psychological need to resolve the conflicting elements of our existence - do I have to die, why are these bad things happening to me?

This kind of false optimism / delusion that our psychology creates for us seems to have more adaptive power than the alternative. Complacent people who follow cultural norms and produce babies are the most likely to procreate, and religion allows for a kind of optimism that makes this more likely.

Sure, authority figures telling mistruths is a part of it, but how many of those people truly believe the stories themselves, too? And why is it so difficult for these people to just stop for 5 minutes and wonder - maybe my beliefs aren't true? This happens sometimes, but usually it doesn't because the incentives aren't there. Why convince myself that Christianity is untrue, when I get so many cognitive benefits from it actually being true?

Perhaps the acquisition and availability of knowledge will help change that, making it possible that folks like ourselves will actually have knowledge as opposed to the lies that are religious explanations. No stress needed. For many people it is absurd to think miracles happen, that dead men walk around and then fly around, ghosts, woo generally. Religion actually suppresses the acquisition of knowledge, Galileo being a great example.

Conservatives in the U.S. don't want public education because it potentially fosters diversity, acceptance and inquiry, experiment, etc., all things anathema to religion in the long run.

One of the uncanny things I think about is that until Darwin, plausible alternatives barely existed. So it hasn't even been that long since we've been capable of seeing materialism.

Knowledge definitely helps, but to me the mistake would be in the assumption that our communities are on the inevitable march to universal secularism. In some places there's been headway, but all it takes is the break-down of these communities before they tread right back into religious thinking.

And I've heard that in terms of the world's demography, by proportion the world is actually becoming more religious, not less this century.

 

[Atheos]

Only that Christianity ... the faith as according to Jesus is that its.... NOT HIDDEN! ALL is welcome to "come and go" as they please! I'd be atheist if I saw some evidence to become one.

And I'd be a non-believer-in-leprechauns if I saw some evidence to become one.

 

[Learner]

Only that Christianity ... the faith as according to Jesus is that its.... NOT HIDDEN! ALL is welcome to "come and go" as they please! I'd be atheist if I saw some evidence to become one.

And I'd be a non-believer-in-leprechauns if I saw some evidence to become one.

Meanwhile you can keep erm..arguing the case for leprecauns.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Perhaps the acquisition and availability of knowledge will help change that, making it possible that folks like ourselves will actually have knowledge as opposed to the lies that are religious explanations. No stress needed. For many people it is absurd to think miracles happen, that dead men walk around and then fly around, ghosts, woo generally. Religion actually suppresses the acquisition of knowledge, Galileo being a great example.

Conservatives in the U.S. don't want public education because it potentially fosters diversity, acceptance and inquiry, experiment, etc., all things anathema to religion in the long run.

One of the uncanny things I think about is that until Darwin, plausible alternatives barely existed. So it hasn't even been that long since we've been capable of seeing materialism.

Knowledge definitely helps, but to me the mistake would be in the assumption that our communities are on the inevitable march to universal secularism. In some places there's been headway, but all it takes is the break-down of these communities before they tread right back into religious thinking.

And I've heard that in terms of the world's demography, by proportion the world is actually becoming more religious, not less this century.

Well, again, I think we’re just using similar terminology just with slightly different meanings, but I agree that the world is becoming more “religious” in the sense that people seem to be looking for “saviors” rather than “leaders.” Again, the Sanders fraud was almost entirely driven by an ironic group of atheists/agnostics nevertheless looking for a messianic figure who could promise them magical ponies while at the same time outright stating that he could not possibly give them magical ponies.

They didn’t care. The promise of magic overwhelmed the admission that no such magic could be given. They just referred to it as idealism rather than using any religious terms, but it’s the same mystical thinking. Essentially it was, I don’t care that it can’t work, that’s what I want the world to be and if everyone else would just stand on a hill drinking Coke with me, we’d all be in paradise.

But the way I look at it, this “propensity” is more about the dissonance between imagining a better life and being forced to deal with reality. “Religions” (aka, cults) just exploit that “propensity” in order to control and manipulate. Whether that began benignly or maliciously is irrelevant.

 

[Atheos]

Only that Christianity ... the faith as according to Jesus is that its.... NOT HIDDEN! ALL is welcome to "come and go" as they please! I'd be atheist if I saw some evidence to become one.

And I'd be a non-believer-in-leprechauns if I saw some evidence to become one.

Meanwhile you can keep erm..arguing the case for leprecauns.

This is an example of missing the point completely. I did not in any way infer that I was arguing the case for leprechauns.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If the world is becoming more religious that is only because it has become less religious. It had to drop below 100% which it did. The present uptick is simply backlash. So the hand wheel of atheism and non piety stopped momentarily. It made serious revolutions against religiosity, and the numbers in the U.S prove that. Maybe it's like Greek democracy, it'll take time but it will only grow.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

If the world is becoming more religious that is only because it has become less religious. It had to drop below 100% which it did. The present uptick is simply backlash. So the hand wheel of atheism and non piety stopped momentarily. It made serious revolutions against religiosity, and the numbers in the U.S prove that. Maybe it's like Greek democracy, it'll take time but it will only grow.

I think that’s probably it. A small percentage jumped too early onto the atheist/agnostic bandwagon, so to speak, and found themselves terrified of not having easy answers to tough questions, so they backslid into idealism through politics when a “false prophet” like Sanders came along on the left and a “devil” like Trump on the right.

But it should be noted the conditions for either were artificially manufactured by both camps with all of the preliminary bullshit about “the establishment” and a “Sanders revolution” etc. It was lightning in a bottle, where both extremists on opposite ends of the political spectrum took advantage of a nascent technology (social media becoming the new msm) to push an artificial agenda that in turn would lay the ideological/philosophical groundwork for their respective campaigns.

Obama’s legacy was so strong that the only hope either a Republican challenger or a would-be left-wing extremist (in sheep’s clothing) had was to destroy any semblance of its effect. For the right that just meant hatred and unleashing dormant racism; on the left that meant attacking a mythical elite/1%/corporate culture that ironically was the primary cause for the economic recovery in the first place.

Blame the rich on the left; blame the niggers on the right. Basically.

And the thing that always gets lost in all of it is the fact that neither side won in spite of appearances.

I’ve mentioned this many times before, this country has a purely binary understanding of “winning” and “losing” that still hinders our understanding of what happened in 2016, but luckily 2018 corrected that myopia for most. Not all, unfortunately, as the resurgence of Sanders unfortunate proves, but most.

Iow, there never was any kind of “red wave” or sea change that actually happened in 2016. It was all just smoke and mirrors. Sanders got decimated in the primaries. The “revolution” that was so over hyped and so saturated everyone’s social media feeds couldn’t manage to motivate more than 5% of Democrats to get out and vote for him.

Trump famously lost by not just three million, but upwards of ten million or more when you count the subsequent preference polling of registered voters who—for non-partisan reasons—were not able to actually cast their ballots.

So the “pulse” of the country was simply never properly reflected in the mechanics of the election, if you will.

Iow, Hillary Clinton won in a landslide of popular opinion, but for a conflation of a myriad of different tiny (and not so tiny) elements was not put into the White House according to that massive popular opinion.

But, again, we tend to think in binary terms when it comes to such contests, so the notion of someone winning who nevertheless lost just can’t be properly processed by far too many. And of course the agenda of the actual losers was to immediately demand—through bombastic fiat alone—that they won, not lost. Suddenly a “technical knockout” in the fifteenth round, became a Mike Tyson hammersledge in the first 90 seconds.

Point being that we’ve been living with the knowledge that there is no wizard behind the curtain yet the idiot is STILL pretending he’s the wizard. And we all just have to live with it even though we know it’s all smoke and mirrors.

Just like any cult belief system.

And so we’ve manufactured a false narrative about our society that, because enough are starting to believe the false narrative actually allowed false prophets to emerge and succeed in ways they never should have before. A false foundation gave rise to false prophets and the artificially created need for a “savior” led some otherwise critical thinking individuals to fall fast and hard into idealism and fantasy.

It didn’t matter that promises of magical ponies could not possibly be fulfilled, the desire for a magical pony became a frighteningly dominant narrative that still exists today (and in the same personages on both the left and the right).

We are clearly in another messianic age, but the interesting thing about this one is we can clearly see how it was manufactured, not organically grown.

 

[Atheos]

Notice

..

 

[Learner]

Meanwhile you can keep erm..arguing the case for leprecauns.

This is an example of missing the point completely. I did not in any way infer that I was arguing the case for leprechauns.

Sorry bout that, It went right over my head. So as a believer of leprechauns, would you argue the case?

 

[abaddon]

Meanwhile you can keep erm..arguing the case for leprecauns.

This is an example of missing the point completely. I did not in any way infer that I was arguing the case for leprechauns.

Sorry bout that, It went right over my head. So as a believer of leprechauns, would you argue the case?

The point of bringing up leprechauns is to say WHY he's not a believer -- no convincing case, just the mere testimony of people telling fairy tales.

This is something you've shown no ability to understand since forever. So I'm going to jump in and post at length, to see if it's possible to help you understand atheism.

To live up to your username, do try to follow along:

When atheists compare God to fairy tale creatures, they're saying "just like there is no good reason to believe in the fairy tale creature, there is no good reason to believe in God".

You had said: "I'd be atheist if I saw some evidence to become one."

That statement assumes one takes up belief in atheism by seeing evidence for atheism. Not so.

Here's why an atheist is an atheist:

1) A theist claims "there's a God".
2) A person looks at the evidence, for example the "testimony" of the Bible.
3) The person is not convinced by that evidence.
4) Therefore that person feels no compelling reason to believe in God.

Most simply: atheism = unconvinced by theism. If he "becomes" an atheist, then he must have been a theist. The same basic process applies but, instead of feeling no compelling reason to start believing in God, he feels a compelling reason to stop believing in God.

When atheists compare God to leprechauns (or to Santa Claus or an invisible dragon or pink unicorn), they are looking for something that YOU also have never felt a compelling reason to believe. It's an attempt to find common ground, as there are things you don't believe also for the reason of not having been convinced.

Follow this:

1) A leprechaun-believer says "there are leprechauns".
2) Learner looks at the evidence presented. For example, the testimony of some fellows who claim they saw a leprechaun sitting by a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow
3) Learner thinks "That's not convincing enough for me to become a leprechaun-believer".
4) So Learner goes on with his life, not feeling a compelling reason to add a belief in leprechauns to his life.

That's how atheism works.

Do you understand?

 

[Learner]

Thanks Abaddon, but I am intrigiued as to why you (both) actually think I believed this of Atheos. I was replying in a "like-wise" manner to his post i.e. irony went over both your heads!

I have never seen Atheos claim Leprechauns to be true in all the time I've been here so surely I would understand this.

Anyway unicorns are real and exist today! But Santa erm ... perhaps not.

 

[Learner]

The point of bringing up leprechauns is to say WHY he's not a believer -- no convincing case, just the mere testimony of people telling fairy tales.

This is something you've shown no ability to understand since forever. So I'm going to jump in and post at length, to see if it's possible to help you understand atheism.

To live up to your username, do try to follow along:

When atheists compare God to fairy tale creatures, they're saying "just like there is no good reason to believe in the fairy tale creature, there is no good reason to believe in God".

You had said: "I'd be atheist if I saw some evidence to become one."

*That statement assumes one takes up belief in atheism by seeing evidence for atheism. Not so.

.

*Not from my perspective, meaning ... evidence to convince someone who already believes the alternative.

Most simply: atheism = unconvinced by theism. If he "becomes" an atheist, then he must have been a theist. The same basic process applies but, instead of feeling no compelling reason to start believing in God, he feels a compelling reason to stop believing in God

When atheists compare God to leprechauns (or to Santa Claus or an invisible dragon or pink unicorn), they are looking for something that YOU also have never felt a compelling reason to believe. It's an attempt to find common ground, as there are things you don't believe also for the reason of not having been convinced.

Follow this:

1) A leprechaun-believer says "there are leprechauns".
2) Learner looks at the evidence presented. For example, the testimony of some fellows who claim they saw a leprechaun sitting by a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow
3) Learner thinks "That's not convincing enough for me to become a leprechaun-believer".
4) So Learner goes on with his life, not feeling a compelling reason to add a belief in leprechauns to his life.

That's how atheism works.

Do you understand?

I understand. (at least leprechauns is not enough for either of us)

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

These gods are unlike other alleged Santa-like creatures in that they are so undefined. If one doesn't like one aspect of the story you can ignore it and invent some other attribute more agreeable. Very malleable tales, something for everyone.