Religious arguments and analogies that really bother you

[Lion IRC]

I wouldn't claim that there is a default truth position against which every alternative position bears some greater burden of persuasion.

So why is the no-God hypothesis any more or less immune from the need to justify itself in the way the God Conclusion seeks to justify itself?

 

[bigfield]

I wouldn't claim that there is a default truth position against which every alternative position bears some greater burden of persuasion.

So why is the no-God hypothesis any more or less immune from the need to justify itself in the way the God Conclusion seeks to justify itself?

Consider that in its general form:

"Why is the no-X hypothesis any more or less immune from the need to justify itself in the way the X Conclusion seeks to justify itself?"

Where X can be:
Russell's Teapot
Fairies
Krishna
The Force
The Flying Spaghetti Monster
The Invisible Pink Unicorn
Skull-juggling psychic were-walruses from Pluto

 

[Lion IRC]

Funny how it's always (conveniently) the lucky/lazy atheist claiming that all supernatural claims are exactly equivalent to Russell's Teapot - just before they claim that therefore atheism should be the default position.

Well in that case, I claim that wishful thinking atheists have their own invented version of god and we should include it on the same list as Russell's Teapot and flying spaghetti monsters, etc. The atheist who imagines an impotent, irrelevant, invisible god, who never acts or intervenes in human affairs, (and never punishes sinners,) has done exactly what they accuse other theists of doing - creating the type of god they wish were true.

And since this supposedly invisible, powerless god is affirmatively posited by the atheist then why should I believe in the type of god proposed by atheism unless the atheist can persuade me to - proselytizing.

 

[Lion IRC]

Atheist says believers invent the afterlife as a coping mechanism
and that heaven is wishful thinking.

Well what shall we make of the person who believes/wishes that God and the afterlife isn't real?

Atheism starts to look very attractive if you think you can live like there's no tomorrow.

View attachment 9209

Worrying that there is an afterlife Mr Dawkins????
Is one of those ladies your wife?

 

[abaddon]

... since this supposedly invisible, powerless god is affirmatively posited by the atheist...

If it's not just a strained imagination on your part, then you can quote an atheist affirmatively positing that an invisible powerless god exists.

 

[bigfield]

Funny how it's always (conveniently) the lucky/lazy atheist claiming that all supernatural claims are exactly equivalent to Russell's Teapot - just before they claim that therefore atheism should be the default position.

What is the fundamental difference between Russell's Teapot and the Christian God that shifts the burden of proof?

Well in that case, I claim that wishful thinking atheists have their own invented version of god

By definition, atheists don't believe in the existence of any gods, including an "an impotent, irrelevant, invisible god, who never acts or intervenes in human affairs".

And since this supposedly invisible, powerless god is affirmatively posited by the atheist then why should I believe in the type of god proposed by atheism unless the atheist can persuade me to - proselytizing.

How to shift the burden of proof, by Lion IRC:

1. Claim atheists actually believe in a god.
2. Demand atheists prove the existence of this unfalsifiable god.

The sophistry is becoming increasingly desperate.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I wouldn't claim that there is a default truth position against which every alternative position bears some greater burden of persuasion.

So why is the no-God hypothesis any more or less immune from the need to justify itself in the way the God Conclusion seeks to justify itself?

We can see that there is a material Universe. We see no signs of a transcendent, immaterial being of any sort.

If you wish to argue that there is, then the burden of evidence is on you. Recent surveys from Pew have demonstrated 26% of those who claim they believe in God believe in God as a force, not a personal God. Which version of God do you want us to believe in and why? Is God inside or outside of time? What can be proven conclusively about God based on hard evidence? Why should we conclude there is only one God? Why does this God critter seem to be tied up in so many impossibly logical puzzles?

Overall, to us atheists, God does not seem to be a happening thing. So that hypothesis is dropped as possible until the theologians can find some hard evidence for existence of God rather than empty propositions. As I mentioned in an earlier post, we find that instead of one overarching proposition about God, we have many such claims about various types of Gods. What I call the God zoo, omni-everything Gods, process theology limited Gods, polytheist nature Gods and more. Which member of the God zoo do you believe in and why do you reject the others?

What hard evidence do you have for any God that can withstand scrutiny? Again, we atheists see lots of evidence a material Universe exists, so that is default truth when otherwise we see no evidence for anything beyond that?

 

[skepticalbip]

I wouldn't claim that there is a default truth position against which every alternative position bears some greater burden of persuasion.

So why is the no-God hypothesis any more or less immune from the need to justify itself in the way the God Conclusion seeks to justify itself?

A no god hypothesis would need the same burden of persuasion as a god hypothesis. However, the position of science is only that there is no reason or need to assume a god, science does quite well without such a critter... this is quite different than asserting that there is no god. If there is a god then it is irrelevant to science unless and until it decides to change the laws of physics.

 

[Juma]

A no god hypothesis would need the same burden of persuasion as a god hypothesis.

What is a "no god" hypotesis? Since you havent defined what "god" is supposed to mean, "no god" is totally vacous and could mean "carrots are vegetables".

If on the other hand we by "god" means the ambrahamitic god then we have good evidence that the "no god" hypotesis is true.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Atheist says believers invent the afterlife as a coping mechanism
and that heaven is wishful thinking.

Well what shall we make of the person who believes/wishes that God and the afterlife isn't real?

Atheism starts to look very attractive if you think you can live like there's no tomorrow.

View attachment 9209

Worrying that there is an afterlife Mr Dawkins????
Is one of those ladies your wife?

And atheist can reject God but still believe in magic. Atheism is an incredibly narrow and specific statement.

Aren't you talking about rationalists or skeptics now?

To get philosophical about it, we couldn't possibly know what happens after death. We have no clues or evidence to draw any conclusions. None.

If I'm to speculate I personally agree though. I think it's pretty aparent that it's simply fear of death. Instead of accepting the aparent truth, it all just ends, religious people often just reject it outright, like children. Putting their fingers in their ears and going "LA LA LA not listening". I think that belief in an afterlife is incredibly childish.

It's similar to the belief that God watches us and keeps a tally regarding how good or bad we've been. Makes no sense and is IMHO just wishful thinking, backed up by nothing.

 

[bigfield]

If atheism is merely the lack of belief in God(s) then theism is simply the lack of belief that God is imaginary.

Happy now? We both "lack" belief.


I lack the belief that Jesus was a myth.

I lack the belief that God is an invention.

I lack the belief that things like universes spontaneously pop into existence for no reason.

I lack belief in a ton of things. I'm a non-atheist.

These word games are also self-defeating in another way. Your complaints about the burden of proof expose the fact that you simply cannot support your claim.

If a scientist were to make the same complaints about burden of proof, their audience would instantly recognise that the scientist's claims are groundless, otherwise the scientist would simply shoulder the burden and present their evidence.

https://youtu.be/KayBys8gaJY?t=367

(Considering that video was published in 2012, it's clear that Lion IRC is far from the first apologist to try this tactic.)

 

[Underseer]

Lion: My favorite supercreature created the universe. He and his magic human clone rule the universe and can do magical things.
Me: I don't believe you because there is no evidence to support your claim.
Lion: waah! My supercreature is special, so YOU prove that my supercreature isn't real.

If you claim that I expect you to disprove God (based on anything I have actually posted) then you are either ignorant or dishonest.

How many times do I have to say it? I don't care whether you decide to try and defend atheism.
It would be against my own interests to demand or invite you to push that wheel barrow.
Let it go pal! Nobody is shaking your tree.

I lack belief in lack of belief in Krishna.

I don't care whether you decide to defend your non-belief in Krishna. It would go against my interests to demand or invite you to push that wheel barrow. Let it go pal! Nobody is shaking your tree! Your non-belief in Krishna is completely irrational and I don't care if you try to prove the nonexistence of Krishna or not! I know that I have proved Krishna by doubting your nonbelief in Krishna! Whether or not you are smart enough to realize that your nonbelief in Krishna is logically untenable is your own business!

 

[Treedbear]

...
Is there any particular argument that you see being raised at times by theists and evangelists, that you find particularly disturbing and annoying? ...

God is love. It kind of banishes atheists from humanity.

 

[Lion IRC]

I would have thought "God is love" leaves the door open for atheists, sinners, slipping saints, honestly mistaken pagans, etc.

There is no banishment. See the parable of the prodigal son.
The father hasnt locked the gate barring any return. He is waiting with loving and open arms.
Its only if the prodigal son stubbornly refuses to return he banishes himself.

 

[atrib]

I would have thought "God is love" leaves the door open for atheists, sinners, slipping saints, honestly mistaken pagans, etc.

There is no banishment. See the parable of the prodigal son.
The father hasnt locked the gate barring any return. He is waiting with loving and open arms.
Its only if the prodigal son stubbornly refuses to return he banishes himself.

Except for the little fact that your loving imaginary father will roast you forever in a fiery pit if you do not acknowledge his imaginary existence and bow to his will. Or the countless murderous and genocidal acts he has allegedly committed, if your book is to be believed. No human would ever do that to his children, but your loving father apparently does it to billions, and can only be appeased by blood sacrifice.

That is the real perversion of religion, that it make otherwise good, rational people like you accept such actions as a demonstration of love.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Worse yet, this supposed loving father decides who will be elect and saved, and who won't. You don't get a choice.

 

[Lion IRC]

Why are you so indoctrinated by Calvinism?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Calvin simply took the theology of Paul as revelation. So did Luther, and many others. You can abandon "Calvinism", but only if you abandon Paul and the NT as revelation. So what "revelation" do you keep and which do you jettison? By what gauge do you judge which revelation to abandon, and which to keep? What evidence is there that supports any religious claim if revelation is not trustworthy? It's not a case of Calvinism, it's the very idea of the NT being a trustworthy source of anything. If you offer no real program to establish religious truth, why should anybody take your beliefs seriously?

 

[Lion IRC]

But you yourself have (correctly IMHO) recognized that certain doctrines of predestination and total depravity attributed to the likes of Calvin, Zwingli, Luther, etc are logically incoherent. (Defective theology.)

Shouldn't one test of 'religious truth' be that, when we are inspecting scripture (Gods Word), if there are competing interpretations, then the interpretation which involves logical contradictions is probably NOT going to be correct - assuming God wants to be thought of as logical and rational and truthful.

Humans can get doctrines and dogmas wrong.

And if I were you, I too would question man-made doctrines and apologetics which can't or don't pass the logical coherence test. And I'm not saying the skeptic needs to be persuaded or agree with the doctrine. But at least they/we should be able to follow the logic.

A hateful, spiteful psychopathic god might create 'wicked' robots solely for the purpose of 'punishing' them when they do exactly what they were programmed to do. That's logically coherent - crazy god does crazy stuff.

It would only be logically incoherent if that same god said that its robots have free will and their actions are judged according to a moral standard. We would both question the truth of religious theology claim which had such an obvious internal contradiction. Robots being punished (sent to hell) for doing exactly what their programming compelled them to do while psycho god looks on and feigns love for them. That's logically absurd and flies in the face of canon. (The bible read as a whole)

You think Calvins logically incoherent interpretation of Pauline theology means that Paul's inspired contribution to scripture was therefore logically incoherent. But if Calvin was mistaken then you are accusing God of a logical incoherence based on stuff (unbiblical doctrines) which God neither intends nor asserts.

We can do that whole 'duelling verses' thingy if you like and I think I will out gun you. But in any case, I will be defending a theology which IS logically coherent. And you, on the other hand, will be asserting an extremely tenuous hermenuetic based on Calvins myopic understanding of scripture which has internal contradictions and does not harmonize with a broader canonical exegesis.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Yes, Paul's theology is logically incoherent. It's rather a problem if we admit that. It's obviously not revelation. Now what? What evidence then that God exists? No evidence and we can't look to the Bible as revelation to support the existence of God.

The problem is not Calvin, it's Paul's theology. And even earlier, the Essenes claimed that all is predestined. We have no free will. This is an old problem. The nature of the Universe does not seem to support the idea of a good God who loves us. Or truly, any God at all.

God shifts conceptually to a hypothesis without evidence. Apparently, people are beginning to notice that, Pew has found 26% of those who claim to believe in God do not believe in a personal God but think of God as an impersonal force.

What does that gain us? God is not a good concept, really.

"The Dao that can be named is not the Dao."