Most irritating theological argument ever

[Abdul Alhazred]

For the most part, I was goofing around when I made the post. Yes I do believe that there is a God. Does it mean I follow a Church ? Nah but I'd be willing to bet that Yahzi thinks so ...

Never mind Yahzi. Cut to the chase. Define your terms.

I am effectively an atheist, but I don't quite own up to it because I'm perfectly willing to admit that I can't absolutely disprove that a uniquely self existent being may have willed the universe into existence.

This orients me toward no known religion.

I'll say I'm an agnostic for now, but for all practical purposes I'm an atheist.

 

[Yahweh]

I'll say I'm an agnostic for now, but for all practical purposes I'm an atheist.

(Just humoring the most hilarious line I've ever seen...)

I'm much more cynical, I'm the bastardized version of agnostic, I'm an atheist.

 

[hypnotoad]

I am effectively an atheist, but I don't quite own up to it because I'm perfectly willing to admit that I can't absolutely disprove that a uniquely self existent being may have willed the universe into existence.

I think that very few atheists claim that they can disprove the existence of God. It is up to the proponents of a supernatural phenomenon to prove its existence, and its nonexistence can be assumed until that happens.

Do you admit that there is no evidence that God/Gods exist? If so you can call yourself an atheist. If you are still trying to determine whether there is evidence I would say you are an agnostic.

If someone is an atheist it doesn't mean that they are closed minded if some evidence were to come along, though they have every right to be skeptical.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Re: Re: Most irritating theological argument ever

However, having been on the other side, I am tolerant and patient with those who still think life has no meaning without God. I will never convince them I am happy not worshipping God if I rail at them!

Perhaps, but the point of my post was more to vent my frustration than to convince anyone of anything. I was in a bad, bad mood the day I wrote that and everything was getting to me. When I get into one of those moods, I have no patience for anyone or anything that irritates me.

 

[Yahweh]

I think that very few atheists claim that they can disprove the existence of God. It is up to the proponents of a supernatural phenomenon to prove its existence, and its nonexistence can be assumed until that happens.

The most logical way to prove something does not exist is to prove that it cannot logically exist (God is obviously something that cannot be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena, my only option is to attack him with Philosophy). I do happen to have a handful of "proofs" in my backpocket, there really nothing remarkable or that you havent seen a few times before, but I can recite them if someone likes.

Do you admit that there is no evidence that God/Gods exist? If so you can call yourself an atheist. If you are still trying to determine whether there is evidence I would say you are an agnostic.

If someone is an atheist it doesn't mean that they are closed minded if some evidence were to come along, though they have every right to be skeptical.

Entirely correct. Too many people think atheists and skeptics are "closeminded", but I would think atheists and skeptics are the ones who would be the most happy to evidence for the paranormal or gods.

 

[Roadtoad]

After reading through this thread, I think clubbing is too good for some of the presenters of these inane, childish arguments.

Permit me, please:

(1.) We believe in God because we choose to. Regardless of why we choose to believe, the fact remains that it is a choice. It always has been, it always will be. The "God-shaped hole" has been filled with a broad variety of clutter, including religious prattle from well-meaning sycophants to the damnable poison of the cults. It has also been filled with the search for genuine truth, which is made comprehensible by FACT. Without FACTS, you have NOTHING.

(2.) Life is given meaning by your own choices, and by your own actions. I find it tremendously insulting that there are those who feel that unless I'm being preached at on Sunday, and there every moment the church doors are open, my life lacks meaning.

Big shock, here, kids: My life has NEVER ONCE lacked meaning. I am a father of four, the husband of a wonderful woman, and I'm finally (Hope!) going to be getting into a career that will be wonderous, insipring, challenging, and fulfilling. It has taken me time to reach this point, (and thanks, again, to friends here), but I finally came to the realization that the Church was trivializing what was giving my life meaning. If I am only a good man if I am telling my sons what gives life value, but not demonstrating it, what have I really done? If I tell my wife I love her, but don't show it, it might make God happy, but what have I done for her?

If I am not available to my sons, or to my wife, but instead, commit our resources to the pursuit of a God who has no interest in our lives, (which, I would suspect would invalidate His Deity), then does my life, in fact, have meaning? These are the relationships which in part define who I am, and will live on after me. My connection to these people provides the meaning to my life, and ultimately, reveals what I value.

The Church is right on one point: No one ever laid on their deathbed and said, "I wish I'd spent more time at work." In my case, I won't be saying, "I wish I'd spent more time at church."

 

[Yahzi]

INah but I'd be willing to bet that Yahzi thinks

Yahzi thinks you are simply shallow. You make your comments and your descisions without any regard to history, common sense, or reality. Your only concern is your own emotional satisfaction.

The Catholic Church has just now condemned the use of condoms to prevent the spread of Aids. How many people will die because of this? A million, a hundred thousand, or just a few tens of thousands? But no, you go on claiming that your little irrational indulgence is perfectly acceptable, while their irrational indulgences are obviously bad.

I just have very little patience for people so thick they don't even understand they are hypocrites.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

A church sign on the way home reminded me of another irritating tactic on the part of theists, usually those of the Christian perusasion (though I am sure others use it too). It's not a specific argument per se, just a tactic that they use. That tactic is when they know that they are talking to an atheist and they try to use quotes from the bible to convince said atheist of their point. If someone is an atheist and doesn't beleive in God, why would that atheist give any credence to a book supposedly revelealed by that god? It makes no sense but I see it all the time. In fact it makes me want to break out my club..........

 

[Some Friggin Guy]

Re: Re: Most irritating theological argument ever

However, having been on the other side, I am tolerant and patient with those who still think life has no meaning without God. I will never convince them I am happy not worshipping God if I rail at them!

Ruby, you are much more tolerant than I, I'm afraid.

I was also "on the inside" and we all know how well that went. I do tend to keep my mouth shut most of the time, but there are sometimes these fundies around here just hit me at the right time and I open up both barrels of the debate shotgun. 9 times out of 10, they don't know what hit them. Sometimes all it takes is a single sentence to shut them up, other times, the debate rages for days (interrupted, of course).

Then, of course, there is the rare occasion that I envoke a tactic I learned from here:

I tell them I am preparing for the coming of Cthulhu.

For some reason, that always seems to get them.

 

[c4ts]

Four aircraft, two buildings, and 3,000 lives later, people can still ask what harm could come of beleiving in things that aren't true.

Are you naive, ignorant, retarded, or just mind-numbingly self-centered?

That's an unrepresentative sample of behavior based on belief in things that aren't there.

 

[hypnotoad]

That's an unrepresentative sample of behavior based on belief in things that aren't there.

So? Are you saying we should take an average of the good and bad instances of behavior based on belief in things that aren't there - and then rationally decide whether this is a good thing or a bad thing? Are you defending that sort of behavior?
What are you saying?

Can you please give a representative sample of this behavior?

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

(Just humoring the most hilarious line I've ever seen...)

I'm much more cynical, I'm the bastardized version of agnostic, I'm an atheist.

Wow! Someone got it!

As for the origin of the universe, my mind is still open. He isn't a member of the sex police or the genocide police, but there may be an intelligence behind our existence.

I don't think so, but I can't absolutely prove it.

Which line is the most hilarious? Please tell me so I can repeat it all over.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I think that very few atheists claim that they can disprove the existence of God. It is up to the proponents of a supernatural phenomenon to prove its existence, and its nonexistence can be assumed until that happens.

This is of course complete crap. At the very least you need to argue for your claim here. How many people who subscribe to the "supernatural" agree with you? BTW I assume our consciousnesses are supernatural, right?

Do you admit that there is no evidence that God/Gods exist? If so you can call yourself an atheist. If you are still trying to determine whether there is evidence I would say you are an agnostic.

If someone is an atheist it doesn't mean that they are closed minded if some evidence were to come along, though they have every right to be skeptical.

Why does everyone on this board keep talking about evidence all the time. Is no-one capable of getting it into their heads that metaphysical hypotheses are different from scientific ones?

You use reason. It's no good spouting forth about evidence because no-one has a clue what evidence would count towards the existence of a God or count towards the possibility of atheism until one understands what one is precisely saying in asserting there is, or is not, a God.

A question. What conceivable state of affairs would need to pertain before you were to relinquish your atheism?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Most irritating theological argument ever

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Recently, I have encountered a particular argument in favor of God several times, once on this board, a couple of times away from it. This argument is the one that says, at its core, "God must exist because life would be meaningless if he didn't". I have also seen this argument used to justify why several other superstitions must be true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am guilty of saying such a thing...in the past.

Nothing to be guilty about at all. A perfectly reasonable sentiment. Nyarlathotep is attacking a strawman in describing it as an argument.

Now I have found that the more I have pushed "God" out of my life, the more real my life becomes. Life has far much more meaning to me now.

There should be no reason why life should have more meaning if one is an atheist. If anything there should be less meaning.

However, having been on the other side, I am tolerant and patient with those who still think life has no meaning without God.

No, not no meaning, rather no purpose.

I will never convince them I am happy not worshipping God if I rail at them!

Worship God??? Why on earth should any one do that even if God should exist??

 

[Interesting Ian]

After reading through this thread, I think clubbing is too good for some of the presenters of these inane, childish arguments.

Permit me, please:

(1.) We believe in God because we choose to. Regardless of why we choose to believe, the fact remains that it is a choice. It always has been, it always will be. The "God-shaped hole" has been filled with a broad variety of clutter, including religious prattle from well-meaning sycophants to the damnable poison of the cults. It has also been filled with the search for genuine truth, which is made comprehensible by FACT. Without FACTS, you have NOTHING.

(2.) Life is given meaning by your own choices, and by your own actions. I find it tremendously insulting that there are those who feel that unless I'm being preached at on Sunday, and there every moment the church doors are open, my life lacks meaning.

Has anyone ever suggested such a thing? Or are you simply attacking a strawman? Even if it were the case that people were so stupid as to express such a feeling, how does this give any evidence against an appropriately defined God?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Big shock, here, kids: My life has NEVER ONCE lacked meaning. [/B]

That doesn't alter the fact that it may lack purpose.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Yahzi thinks you are simply shallow. You make your comments and your descisions without any regard to history, common sense, or reality. Your only concern is your own emotional satisfaction.

The Catholic Church has just now condemned the use of condoms to prevent the spread of Aids. How many people will die because of this? A million, a hundred thousand, or just a few tens of thousands? But no, you go on claiming that your little irrational indulgence is perfectly acceptable, while their irrational indulgences are obviously bad.

I just have very little patience for people so thick they don't even understand they are hypocrites.

Very stupid of the cathjolic church I'm sure. But how the hell does this constitute any evidence against the existence of a God?

 

[Psydox]

There's that absolute thinking again. Your reasoning, Yahzi, continues to hold an individual belief (individual being that I am an individual with this belief) responsible for actions of others.

Aren't you the one who thinks that people are inherently bad ?

As posted by Yahzi in the following thread : http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28536&pagenumber=2

First, people are not inherently good. They have the inherent capacity to be good, and an instinctual desire to be good. Just like they have the capacity for language, and a desire to communicate. But if you raise a child in an isolation box until puberty, he won't ever be very good at language, and he won't ever be very moral.

So are you now going to take away my inherent capacity, my instinctual desire to be good because I choose to believe in something you say is false but yet can't prove is false....Doh!! who do you think you are >.. God

Yahzi, take yourself out of your isolation box and consider that all the bad actions come not from an individual belief but instead from a thing called Hate.

Who is the one that used words like : naive, ignorant, retarded, mind-numbingly self-centered, just because I will not agree with you and choose instead to maintain my individual belief.

Finally let me ask you this.....is it the belief that does bad or is it the person ?

I think you are a total *&^* hole .....but hey that's just my belief. Dosen't mean I'm going to go to Wal-Mart now and blow everyone away because I think this of you.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

I think that very few atheists claim that they can disprove the existence of God. It is up to the proponents of a supernatural phenomenon to prove its existence, and its nonexistence can be assumed until that happens.

Do you admit that there is no evidence that God/Gods exist? If so you can call yourself an atheist. If you are still trying to determine whether there is evidence I would say you are an agnostic.

If someone is an atheist it doesn't mean that they are closed minded if some evidence were to come along, though they have every right to be skeptical.

All right then. By your terms I am unquestionably an atheist. That doesn't bother me. I don't shrink from being so called. But I can't help having a sneaking suspicion that some meanie is responsible for existence.

It feels good to blame somebody.

 

[Ruby]

Re: Re: Re: Most irritating theological argument ever

Perhaps, but the point of my post was more to vent my frustration than to convince anyone of anything. I was in a bad, bad mood the day I wrote that and everything was getting to me. When I get into one of those moods, I have no patience for anyone or anything that irritates me.

Then it sounds like you need you a hug!