Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Glowcat]

If you specifically do not believe in the Christian god, does that mean you believe in all the other mutually exclusive gods? What about the Muslim god and the Jewish god? I believe that they are both the same God as the Christian god.

Building off Africa's analogy: There may be one Batman, but Adam West batman, Batman The Animated Series batman, and Dark Knight batman are notably different.

[bitterhorn]

If you specifically do not believe in the Christian god, does that mean you believe in all the other mutually exclusive gods? What about the Muslim god and the Jewish god? I believe that they are both the same God as the Christian god.

Building off Africa's analogy: There may be one Batman, but Adam West batman, Batman The Animated Series batman, and Dark Knight batman are notably different.

This is actually a pretty terrific analogy.

[freeformschooler]

If you specifically do not believe in the Christian god, does that mean you believe in all the other mutually exclusive gods? What about the Muslim god and the Jewish god? I believe that they are both the same God as the Christian god.

Building off Africa's analogy: There may be one Batman, but Adam West batman, Batman The Animated Series batman, and Dark Knight batman are notably different.

I just told my friend this and he agrees completely, as do I... almost.

Only problem with the analogy is that Adam West batman, for example, would have to be implicitly mean or nice or other things depending on the interpreter. So in reality most if not all theists are just fanfic writers for whatever god/gods they believe in.

[G-Flex]

If you specifically do not believe in the Christian god, does that mean you believe in all the other mutually exclusive gods? What about the Muslim god and the Jewish god? I believe that they are both the same God as the Christian god.

• Who are you even arguing against here? Who is saying that they specifically do not believe in the Christian God without making comments about others?
• If atheists happen to focus on the Judeo-Christian concept of God, it's because that is the concept most relevant to our culture. Keep in mind that "atheist" does not even begin to describe a person's beliefs; it's simply a rejection of one particular belief, the belief in God or gods. If the majority of people in the US believed in unicorns, then the beliefs of the nonreligious would be framed in terms of their disbelief in unicorns. As it stands, the majority of Americans (and those in the Western world in general, I suppose) believe in the Judeo-Christian God, so the beliefs of the nonreligious are framed with reference to that. This is not something that "atheists" got together and did on purpose, and it is not "racist". In fact, it's not even a good thing for atheists! Speaking as an incredibly irreligious person, I hate having to say I'm "atheist"; why should my religious identification be based on one particular concept I don't believe in? Belief in a god is no more relevant to my life than belief in unicorns, Santa Claus, angels, reincarnation, or the alien conqueror Xenu, so why do people expect me to identify based on whether or not I believe in God? If anything, the classification of the irreligious as "atheistic" betrays an extreme Judeo-Christian-centric culture. My point here is that if "atheists" describe themselves as such in terms of not believing in the Abrahamic God, it's because that God is the most socially relevant thing they are rejecting, and they are implicitly pressured into identifying as such.
• Yes, the Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the same God, even if their interpretations of him are slightly different. Not news.

[Urist McDerp]

I see your tactic now, pretty ingenious.  Destroy the argument by dividing the sides up into so many mutually exclusive subtypes that you can no longer meaningfully argue.

It would be a tactic if I had a goal. It simply annoys me. Like I said before, it begins to dumb things down and invokes some unconscious psychological pre-dispositions to bad habits.

I'm no psychologist, but I believe the same bits of psychology responsible for a person being prone to forming a group with similar opinions also makes them thick headed at the same time. It's essential for group cohesion. Evolutionarily, it makes sense, as those prone to this would be better at cooperating, form tightly-knit groups/tribes, and survive. They'll also cling to the bitter end, again for unity and cohesion of their social circle.

I still, to this day, have yet to convince an atheist that he and fellow atheists may be prone to the same behavioral tendencies that they believe is exclusive to religious groups. Especially the anti-theists/anti-religious circles, un-ironically.

no longer meaningfully argue.

Actually, you can't meaningfully argue using broad, poorly defined blanket terms. That's kind of the whole point of my theological stance of Ignosticism.

oh wait, also:

[Atheism] simply a rejection of one particular belief

I already want to argue with you that definition. I've never personally got away with saying "atheism is X" without getting into an argument with an "atheist". When I say "[religious thing] is [negative commentary]" however... BAM! Instant flash mob of support from "atheists". However I won't argue with you because it never goes anywhere, because everyone seems to have a slightly different personal definition of it. Hence there wouldn't be much of an argument.

[Leafsnail]

"Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity" sums it up quite nicely for me (yeah, it's quite a wide blanket term.  Arguably some Buddhists, for instance, are "atheists").  I don't think many atheists would argue with that definition (although obviously their beliefs aren't entirely defined by it).

I still, to this day, have yet to convince an atheist that he and fellow atheists may be prone to the same behavioral tendencies that they believe is exclusive to religious groups. Especially the anti-theists/anti-religious circles, un-ironically.

This is a pretty disingenuous thing to say - there seems to be an implication that you have failed to convince atheists in spite of the fact that they all exhibit the behavioural tendancies of religious groups.  Is it not possible that most of them weren't "convinced" because... well, it's not true in their case (could be true in some cases, though)?

[breadbocks]

I saw this thread, and thought, "Oh good. Another thread. Didn't toady have to close the last two? I suspect trolling."

So I browsed in and was shocked at how utterly much of a jackass the OP was. But I stomached it and read on, until I got to this.

We're already overcrowded with Jews. Any more and we'll have to start rationing money.

As an agnostic (I believe a god is possible, but doesn't exsist.) Jew, this deeply offended me. I happen be profitable, but only through hard work, rather than a giant nose and magic gold.

OP, either lock the thread, or the admins will end up brought in with a ban on you.

[freeformschooler]

So I browsed in and was shocked at how utterly much of a jackass the OP was. But I stomached it and read on, until I got to this.

The thread was actually pretty swell except for him/her, I think. I hope

[Criptfeind]

G-Flex, you seem to have me confused with someone else.

[lemon10]

We're already overcrowded with Jews. Any more and we'll have to start rationing money.

As an agnostic (I believe a god is possible, but doesn't exsist.) Jew, this deeply offended me. I happen be profitable, but only through hard work, rather than a giant nose and magic gold.

It was a response to someone saying:

We're already overcrowded with Atheists. Any more and we'll have to start rationing the babies.

As such, especially since it was obviously a joke (possibly bad) in response to glowcat, I doubt it means he deserves a ban or that the thread needs to be locked.
EDIT: although it will probably be locked in the end.

[Bohandas]

So I browsed in and was shocked at how utterly much of a jackass the OP was. But I stomached it and read on, until I got to this.

We're already overcrowded with Jews. Any more and we'll have to start rationing money.

As an agnostic (I believe a god is possible, but doesn't exsist.) Jew, this deeply offended me. I happen be profitable, but only through hard work, rather than a giant nose and magic gold.

OP, either lock the thread, or the admins will end up brought in with a ban on you.

If you had read the rest of that post you would have seen that it was given as an example of an "irrelevant or false statement".

[G-Flex]

There is a similar lack of evidence for there not being a God; what I take from this is that atheism, Christianity (and all subsects thereof), Pastafarianism and every other belief about the universe that has no proof either for or against is equally likely. Being a believer in Occam's Razor, and not wanting to restrict myself based on the morality of others rather than my own, I believe in no god.

The burden of proof is on the theists here, or else you could make the argument "prove there AREN'T unicorns!" right back at them.

I'm no psychologist, but I believe the same bits of psychology responsible for a person being prone to forming a group with similar opinions also makes them thick headed at the same time. It's essential for group cohesion. Evolutionarily, it makes sense, as those prone to this would be better at cooperating, form tightly-knit groups/tribes, and survive. They'll also cling to the bitter end, again for unity and cohesion of their social circle.

I still, to this day, have yet to convince an atheist that he and fellow atheists may be prone to the same behavioral tendencies that they believe is exclusive to religious groups. Especially the anti-theists/anti-religious circles, un-ironically.

If it makes you feel any better, I (and some of my friends) get annoyed at fellow atheists for very similar reasons as the ones you're stating.

[Criptfeind]

The burden of proof is on the theists here, or else you could make the argument "prove there AREN'T unicorns!" right back at them.

I believe the burden of proof is on the group that want to prove something. So when you have a atheist asking why people believe in god(s) and basically saying it makes no sense, the burden of proof is on him. When you have a theist asking why people do not believe in god(s) and basically saying that makes no sense the burden of proof is on him.

E g, for your example if some one made a thread on this forum telling everyone that unicorns are not real and people should not believe in them the burden of proof is on the OP.

[G-Flex]

I believe the burden of proof is on the group that want to prove something. So when you have a atheist asking why people believe in god(s) and basically saying it makes no sense, the burden of proof is on him.

That... doesn't make any sense. Saying "belief in God makes no sense" requires no proof except making clear the lack of proof of God's existence. The argument would be that believing in something is senseless if there is no evidence/proof for it, and there's no proof/evidence for God, therefore belief in God is senseless. That is all the burden of proof that the atheist needs in order to justify his point. In this sense, the burden of proof is obviously on the theist to show that there is evidence. Obviously, if the atheist is making a different claim, such as that it is provable there is no God, and that he knows and is positive that there is no God, the burden would be on him to specifically prove why God can't or doesn't exist, beyond the simple lack of evidence. These are two very different scenarios.

E g, for your example if some one made a thread on this forum telling everyone that unicorns are not real and people should not believe in them the burden of proof is on the OP.

See, this is what I mean. If the point the OP is making is "there's no evidence for unicorns", then no, the burden of proof is not on him. The burden of proof is on the Unicorn believers to show there is evidence.

[Glowcat]

The burden of proof is on the theists here, or else you could make the argument "prove there AREN'T unicorns!" right back at them.

I believe the burden of proof is on the group that want to prove something. So when you have a atheist asking why people believe in god(s) and basically saying it makes no sense, the burden of proof is on him. When you have a theist asking why people do not believe in god(s) and basically saying that makes no sense the burden of proof is on him.

E g, for your example if some one made a thread on this forum telling everyone that unicorns are not real and people should not believe in them the burden of proof is on the OP.

This is the exact opposite of correct; it breaks through all shades of incorrectness until it reaches the purist form of wrong.

If the question posed is: "Why do you believe in something", they are asking what proof the believer has. They are not setting out to prove anything themselves.
You can't respond to "This doesn't make sense to me." with "Prove it!". The proof is in that it doesn't make sense to the person. Now, one can argue that there shouldn't be any issues with the proof, and sometimes the person seeking proof is just being thick, but the burden of proof is still on the person being asked for it.