PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
RULES
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
Offline 
Yes.
You could argue bias in just about any historical source, which I why I thought it would be best to give you some more recent examples. How many more would you like ?
Hey, no problem. Just have a look around this board for recent examples of religious evil and general silliness in the name of god.
Confused ? Sure, but about you, not about "proof". I asked you those questions to find out what exactly you were after. We get all kinds here, you know. It's best to ask questions instead of just making assumptions, don't you think ?
Hmm...I'm sorry, but don't you think it might have taken more than one religious nutcase to organise that particular event ?
I met one of his victims, so I can tell you that "nasty dude" doesn't cover it. And you're forgetting his many followers. That story is far from over.
And he did act in the name of God, btw. He believes it, so who are you to say it isn't true ?
Sure. Like I said, how much more would you like before it's proof enough for you ?
Thank you for the links. Still, when reading the whole thing, and not just the quotes, I got the impression that the study suggested that, next to religion, nationalism is also a motivation for suicide bombers. Fair enough, but so what ?
Once again, religion and politics are joined at the hip in most muslim countries.
Not really. Who can tell where religion ends and politics begins in those Muslim countries ? Also, if nationalism is such a powerful motivation for muslim suicide bombers, then why were'nt there any in the Balkan wars ? Many questions like that remain, so no, not very clear at all.
If my mind worked like that, I wouldn't even have bothered to read that study. And no claims I ever made or opinions I hold were shown to be false in that article. Sorry.
As for what I like to think, well, if you must know, I like to think of having sex.
Sure is !
*chuckle*
Heh, are you accusing the posters here of not checking their facts ?
Yup. Well, I already gave you some examples. How many more would you like before it's evidence enough to justify a statement for you ?
Hey, thanks for posting.
I'm not certain if you missed the "In conclusion" paragraph from my original post or are intentionally not taking it into account in weighing the similarities. Here it is, so I can refer to it while dealing with your objections:
shikko wrote:
If that is unclear, let me rephrase: Santa is not supposed to be equal to the Christian god, but to be similar. Similarity does not entail equality; I thought the phrase "god lite" would make that clear. On to your objections.
Given that your objection is based on the idea that Santa is supposed to be equal to the Christian god, it does not apply. Santa parascience (let's call it) is described popularly as "he sees you when you're sleeping/he knows when you're awake/he knows if you've been bad or good/so be good for goodness' sake". That is an exact parallel to the supposed omniscience of the Christian god. A similar parallel is the ability to visit and leave presents in each household with children in the world in a single night, which is physically impossible; just like omnipotence is impossible as it is self-contradictory. Santa's ability to visit each child-inhabited house in the world in one night is immediately similar to the Christian god's omnipresence.
Given that your objection has no basis, the comparison stands.
I disagree. A child does not have the ability to grasp the concept of eternity, and has a marked preference for material over non-material rewards. Both are rewards; it's just that Santa's rewards are something a child can grasp. Again, similar != the same. Remember geometry in high school? There's a difference between two triangles being similar and being congruent. I am illustrating similarity, and you object by stating that my similarities do not add up to congruence. Which is true, but beside the point, since the exercise is similarity, not sameness.
You can of course bring up the tongue-in-cheek assertions of parents about hearing sleigh bells on rooftops late at night, but that is told to the child by someone knowing it to be false. I have never seen any modern person who claims to have seen the Christian god. Many people claim to have seen images of Jesus or Mary, possibly, but that's not the same as seeing the Christian god. Trinitarianism is not a refutation of this point; they are distinct entities according to Christian belief.
As for sightings of the Christian god proper, we have a burning bush, a pillar of fire....what else? I'm not religious, so I'm not completely conversant with all the details of the myths. These are in a single collection of stories that has been conclusively proven to be unreliable in the details of many of its claims. For further evidence of unreliability, please go check out the Biblical Errancy forum here. Or if you want to get your own hands dirty, please tell me if the moon gives off its own light (the bible says yes) or what the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is (3.14159265...), as opposed to what the bible says it is (3).
I think perhaps you do not understand what it means to "compare" two things. It is to illustrate the similarities between two things. You make it clear that you misunderstand by offerering a "ha ha" similie which is a propos; the sun and a 15W bulb both give off heat and light, and require energy to do so. Are they similar? Yes. The same? No.
This whole argument is based on drawing parallels (remember two parallel lines may be the same, but are not required to be) between Santa and the Christian god to illustrate that believing in a watered down version of one is just as silly as believing in the non-diluted version.
That's a positive claim. Please support that position.
Actually, ditto for all three of those; offer objective support for your position or retract the claims, please. Additionally, please explain why both "The Night Before Christmas" and "Miracle on 34th Street" do not count as revelations of Santa, but the Bible does count as a revelation of the Christian god.
Well, that's probably more your fault than ours. You're not really here to help rid yourself of superstition, are you? You're here to raise a silly objection to a marketing campaign and then use that as a tu quoque to "prove" that we silly atheists are just as "irrational" as the craziest fundamentalist.
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
Emphasis on you, or your, added by me throughout.
To MichaelMcF, in post #11
To Brian37, in post #12
To Renee Obsidianwords, in post #22
To jcgadfly, wonko and nigelTheBold, in post #23
To MichaelMcF, in post #25
Now you provide evidence that Michael, Brian, Renee, Gadfly, Wonko and Nigel had, prior to these posts by you, told you in no uncertain terms that they considered the slogan "theirs", or, in the case of Renee, that she considered herself to be the RRS incarnate.
If you cannot provide evidence for that, then you have made an assertion (that the slogan was "theirs" ) based on inaddecuate evidence, because regardless of wether you could now get each of them to profess ownership of the slogan (or the RRS), you did at the time make an unfounded assumption.
For your reflection, I will repeat something I once read:
Who wrote that? Oh right, it was you.
Now will you stop replying to what the above people didn't say (that is, the slogan)?
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
I'm sorry everyone about the inconsistent fonts (bold, italics, etc) - the text editor is just doing things to me, and while I could edit it in the plain text editor, I can't be bothered.
jcgadfly.
An institution is some sort of official organisation. Most of the killings, by alleged theists or alleged atheists, actually were committed by people acting in the name of Governments or other institutions, not themselves as individuals. Therefore if we are to blame theism or atheism for any of those killings, it is those beliefs as expressed through those institutions. That's what I meant. But don't get too hung up on it. My point isn't to "prove" anything, just to point out that the assertions made by apparent atheists on this forum about why my belief in God needs fixing, namely, that religion has caused so much problems in history, requires evidence, not mere assertion. I was pointing out the difficulties in doing this. Any criticisms you or others make of interpreting the data only make my point stronger.
nigelTheBold
As I keep repeating, this is an unsupported assertion until you provide evidence for it. An more accurate statement may be "I have not seen any objective evidence" or "I don't accept any of the evidence that is proffered." Just repeating the same statements don't make them any more true. This point about evidence and certainty is fundamental, and some of you just don't seem to get it - and you atheists are generally the ones who demand evidence the most!
Again, this is poor logic. You have no idea whether I have evidence for my belief in God, because I haven't offered any. Your statement would be correct if you said "You haven't offered any evidence" and "If you have none ..." The sheer audacity of your assumptions amazes me! You will respnd by asking me to show my reasons, but I will say again, until you show yourselves (collectively) able and willing to apply simple logic, and not presume things you have no reason to assume, I will continue to point out the lack of logic. I have persistently maintained I didn't come here to prove anything or even to promote anything of my own belief, merely to test yours (collectively). The more you say illogical and unsupported things like you have done, the more you are demonstrating what I am saying.
Thank you (genuinely). This is just about the first time anyone has tried to offer an argument for the non-existence of God. Surprising, but true. But the argument is not very well developed (understandably, on a forum). Can I therefore request you to take some of the arguments of the philosophers and demonstrate their falsity?
MichaelMcF:
Yep I agree, I'll be brief also (if I can!)
Yep, that's correct - I'm asking you (collectively) to justify your apparent claim to be able to "fix" belief in God (which I take to mean change it). So now you admit you can't do it, I've achieved what I set out to do. Thanks.
I'm not shifting anything. Atheists talk a lot about "burden of proof", until it has become almost a mantra, repeated but not well understood. As I understand it, burden of proof is first of all a legal term but applied to philosophy, means that when constructing logical arguments (or trying to), each premise and proposition requires justification. "The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition." (see this site) Since I'm not at this stage making any propositions, just asking you (collectively) to explain and justify yours, I have no burden of proof. But until you and your fellow RRSers stop making propositions (which you may now be doing), the burden of proof is on you. When you stop making statements, there is no burden of proof anywhere until one of us makes some statements again.
The truth is, as you and I at least now recognise, that the arguments for and against God's existence are not so easily resolved. A little humility on the claims made is wisest. And some of the wilder and unsupported claims made on this thread would be better left unmade if we want to be accurate. And I still think the slogan claims too much.
Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), I am not here to do that. Been there, done that. I know the etiquette of these things is supposed to be that both sides act very hairy chested and set out to convert the other, etc, but such arguments rarely get anywhere. I only came because of an invitation email, and I didn't post to argue for my belief (though I am quite willing to do so if I think it is useful) - as I have said repeatedly, I posted because I thought the slogan was pretentious and unrealistic, and suggested those who set up the site (and those who support their viewpoint) had illogical and unsupported views about the existence of God. I believe I have demonstrated that, much more than I actually expected, and I will retire gracefully pretty soon now.
Thanks for your honesty and politeness.
Nicolaj:
Thanks for rejoining the discussion.
Well, that's not always the definition. Some use it to mean "No Gods exist", others to mean "I have no belief in a God". Thanks for clarifying your definition, I think it would be clearer to call that "agnosticism", but obviously there are shades of meaning here. I have found that atheists tend to drift in and out of the different definitions to suit the argument - speak as if they were "strong atheists" until challenged, then retreat into being "weak atheists" until they get steamed up about something and revert to "strong" again. So it is good you at least make your position clear.
But granted that is your definition, why do you support the "we can fix that" slogan? Just because you have no belief, and see no reason to have such a belief, why should other people follow your conclusion? Perhaps they have evidence you don't know about or have assessed wrongly. But if you think lack of belief is the truth and wish to argue that way, then you can presumably offer evidence for that lack of belief - which you haven't done. Which has been my point all along.
Yep. I have done that many times in a long life as a believer, and the re-examination has only strengthened it. But you (collectively) seem to make the assumption that I haven't done that, and hence think you can fix it. Which I think is arrogant.
Yeah, OK, I'll plead guilty! Sorry. The name "Squad" does suggest some sort of collective, so I did assume that those atheists who were on this forum and arguing with me supported the slogan. And I was right about you, dunno how right about the rest, but none of them have said otherwise. But I won't continue to make the assumption, and I have already started to say "you (collectively)" to make clearer that I'm talking about the overall site generally. Is that OK for you?
I guess your wording here indicates you were a bit peeved at my harping on about evidence and proof and stuff. I'm sorry to peeve you if that's the case, but we both know that's what "rational" sort of means. If you guys didn't claim to be so rational, I wouldn't have any reason to keep pointing out less than rational arguments. But whether the rest of the atheists can play at the same game remains to be established.
I guess your sarcasm indicates I have peeved you here as well. Sorry again. I mean that. I want to challenge you all, but not peeve you. But you have got the wrong end of the stick here. I asked some questions in my original post about the RRS slogan. People answered me, including you. Unless clearly stated otherwise, I can assume you are staying on topic and addressing my question. And your posts seem to indicate that. But if you are not defending anything, (1) why bother posting on this topic at all? and (2) I have nothing to say to you. So there is no need for either of us to say any more.
Well thanks everyone, I think that about covers it.
Anonymouse
I read your post. I await a detailed summary of the evils committed by atheists and theists, and demonstration that the beliefs of each were a significant motivation for the evil. And claiming the atheists weren't acting as atheists but the theists were is not allowed unless you can demonstrate it. Thanks.
shikko:
I think you may have missed a later post (#21) where I amplified on this matter of analogy. A website of the University of North Carolina says: ""Identify what properties are important to the claim you're making, and see whether the two things you're comparing both share those properties." If this isn't done, then the analogy is weak and the argument is fallacious. The words are share properties, not have vaguely similar ones, with one much greater than the other. On that basis, you have unfortunately disqualified your own argument, for you admit: "Santa is not supposed to be equal to the Christian god, but to be similar. Similarity does not entail equality". Santa and God do not share any of the properties (omniscience, omnipotence, etc) you have mentioned.
If you think about it, it is ludicrous argument. That is why I mentioned the light bulb and the sun. Yes they do both emit light and heat, and so you can safely conclude that they both will light and heat something. But since the light bulb doesn't share the property of emitting massive amounts of heat created by nuclear fusion, you can't draw the analogy that they can both supply enough heat to support the earth's entire ecosystems. It is the same with God and Santa. If you say they are both generous, we can safely conclude that they might give something to someone. But since they both don't share the property of omniscience, you can't extrapolate to say they can both know the same amount of stuff. If you want to draw a comparison between the existence of God and the existence of Santa, you have to establish a property relevant to their existence that they have in common.
Just one other matter requires comment.
This also indicates a lack of understanding I'm afraid. In this sort of argument, we are not yet concluding whether God exists or not. We simply discuss the properties of each entity as if they existed, so we can test whether they have sufficient properties in common to draw some analogy. I said this right at the beginning of my post: "In this comparison, we are not yet discussing reality, only the definitions of the two entities - the assessment of reality comes later." So I am not here postulating the existence of God or his creation of the universe, just pointing out that the definitions of each entity are very different. It is interesting, don't you think, how slow people here are to offer evidence for their propositions, yet how fast you were to ask me to provide evidence when in fact it wasn't appropriate for that form of argument?
Nicolaj:
You're really keen about this little thing aren't you? There are more important things, and yet you focus on this. I guess if you (collectively) can't demonstrate some of the important things you say, you might as well pin me to the wall on this minor matter. Well I can take the medicine! : ) Anyway, I have already explained that the "you" was often meant to be plural, apologised for my mistake, and started to add "(collectively)" to any "you" I mean to be understood as the group of atheists here, so I think we can leave it eh?
I'm sorry, I've really gotten up your nose about this, haven't I? My main comment has been the slogan (that's what the OP was about) and you still support it, and no-one has repudiated it that I can recall. So it remains a statement that is unjustified. But yes, I will stop soon. I think this conversation has gone about as far as it usefully can, and I will soon exit.
Thank you all.
Geezz. What a bunch of word nit picking. God means WTF, and here we argue about if WTF exists ???? Yeah WTF exists, but why create dogma and confusion about that? .... Ahhh, POWER BABY. ie, I know god and how to worship he .... and my holy book told us so, and I can give you knowledge of the way to dance for god , and it will save you, the correct WTF worship ???? Religion fucking sucks. .... It's so Devilish ......
How does one worship that idol thingy, the WTF ? Well that would be science, and certainly not dogma worship shit. Religion is so ungodly ..... Are we Atheists in any way lacking AWE ?
Atheism Books.
[EDIT: Post self-deleted]
Thanks. Very nice of you to reply to everyone.
"evils committed by atheists" ? I'm sorry, but the simple fact that someone realises there's no proof for the existence of god, isn't enough motivation to go out and kill people. Belief in God, on the other hand, encourages all kinds of unpleasantness.
As for the evils of religion, I already told you that summing them all up might take a while. Which is why I offered to limit myself to recent examples (to avoid bickering about bias), and why I asked you (three times in my last post) how many examples you would need, before you would concede that I might be on to something.
So for the fourth time, how many would you like ? How many demonstrations of wilful stupidity and irrational hatred ? How many dead bodies make religion a bad thing ? Just give me a number and I'll write you a list.
Btw, I take it you now accept the examples I already gave you ?
Atheism isn't a belief. Atheism is looking at the evidence for a supernatural deity and finding that there isn't any. How is that a motivation for evil ? Please demonstrate.
My job is a lot easier. You see, when people commit evil acts in the name of God, they're actually quite proud of it, and not shy about telling other people about it. Just ask them, and they'll tell you.
"Acting as an atheist" only means one thing : Realising there's no evidence for the existence of a deity. This offers no justification for evil of any kind. Religion does. I can demonstrate that very easily by taking you to see a religiously inspired gaybashing, or maybe arranging for you to have a conversation with a muslim family who lost two sons to the jihad. I could go on like that for a while, so once again, how many demonstrations would you like before it means something to you ?
You're welcome.
I notice you're planning to leave, btw. Sorry to hear that. I'm getting used to people bailing out when things get interesting, but to be fair, it probably gets exhausting after a while, having to reply to so many people. So yeah, no hard feelings. All the best to you.
Anonymouse,
Thanks for your friendly tome. But as often happens, I think we are at cross purposes. You keep making statements like:
For the moment, these are opinions which require demonstration. Until you do, I can safely ignore them. Getting the data is a good start.
You are missing the point. People do nasty things sometimes, for all sorts of reasons. If I understand you (correct me if I'm wrong), you are alleging that the nastiness done by theists is far greater than the nasty things done by other people, and therefore theism is a dangerous belief. Now to provide evidence for this statement, you have to show a few things:
1. That theists have done worse things than people generally. Showing a few, or even a lot, of nasty things isn't enough, you need to show the overall amount. otherwise you haven't eliminated the possibility that theists have done nasty stuff but non-theists have done worse things. Which would make theism relatively beneficial.
2. That the reason theists have done these things is because of their theism.
3. If you want to show atheism is superior to theism in these regards, you'll also have to show the record of atheism. If you want to claim that atheists never did anything because of their view about God, you'll have to document that in some way.
Now let's make it clear. You are the one making the claim, you are the one who needs to do the work of finding enough evidence to demonstrate those things. But to justify my scepticism of your claims, and to give you an idea of what I think you are up against, I gave you a few references. These appear to show that the killings committed by atheistic regimes in one century were greater in number than all the killings commiited by christians in twenty centuries - and that was data compiled by an atheist site! I'm not saying that is the final result, and I'm not saying that proves atheists are worse than theists (although there would be a prima facie case for this), I conclude that all sorts of people kill others, and that beliefs do not therefore appear to be a primary differentiation. I also offered some studies on suicide bombers which support this conclusion. So you need to address tose issues and that information.
Further, you want to distance yourself from the atrocities committed by atheistic USSR, China and Cambodia, while not allowing theists to distance themselves from atrocities committed by nominally christian regimes - naturally you do. But be aware that there are quotes from those communist leaders as to their intentions to eliminate religion and create an atheist state, something more damming than is generally available for the "christian" atrocities, so you will have to show convincing evidence of how you can disregard one and not the other. I personally don't think the interweaving of different motivations can be unravelled on either side, but if you are making the claim, you have to unravel it and demonstrate it. It won't be an easy task.
So best wishes.
Most accurate would be, "There is no known objective evidence for the existence of God." There has never been one piece of objective evidence proffered, so it's not just a matter of me accepting it.
As far as evidence of the non-existence of God-- there's no such thing as evidence for the non-existence of something. That's why, in science and logic, the burden of proof is on the person with the positive claim. As others have stated, you are committing a logical fallacy in demanding evidence for atheism.
In post #12, you said:
To which I responded in post #16:
You still haven't truly addressed this. All my other arguments (including the one with you seemed most taken, below) are merely variations on this theme. Note the most salient point: non-belief in God is rational while objective evidence for God does not exist.
That's the current state of matters.
I cannot "prove" there exists no evidence for God, except to point out that there is no extant objective evidence for the existence of God. Logically, this statement is true, until such evidence is presented. If you have no such evidence to present, the statement stands, not as a bald assertion, but as a statement of fact.
No, it's solid logic. The fact that you haven't offered objective evidence for the existence of God is a moot point. I said that for your belief to be rational (a conclusion), objective evidence is required (a conditional). I make the arrogant assumption that you have no objective evidence for the existence of God based on the same rationale that allows me to say that you have no objective evidence for the correctness of string theory -- there is none. There has never once been published objective evidence supporting either one, in spite of all the time, effort, and resources spent on the search.
We have applied simple logic. It is the positive claimant that must present evidence. That's called "burden of proof." Shifting the burden of proof to the negative claimant (us) is illogical. A negative claim requires either an exhaustive search of the universe (impossible), or a shown contradiction with known reality. As you haven't even given us your definition of "God," that too is impossible, as there is an infinite number of potential Gods.
Again, you cannot test our belief. Atheism is a lack of belief, and is itself not a belief. You can test our reasons for lacking belief in God, but that is not what you are asking. You are asking a positive proof for a negative claim, which is a logical impossibility.
You are joking, right? You ask me to demonstrate the errors some of the arguments of the philosophers? So I'd demonstrate the weaknesses in C. S. Lewis, for instance, and you'd say, "Ah, Lewis is easy. What about St. Aquinas?" And I'd demonstrate the flaws in Aquinas's proofs, and you'd go, "That's good, but what about Charles Campbell?" and I'd go and research Charles Campbell and attempt to answer his arguments as well. That's a game of whack-a-mole that would waste both our time.
As far as the argument itself goes, it is nothing but a variation on the same thing I've been saying since post #16. There is no extant objective evidence for the existence of God. This is a prerequisite for the rational belief in God. And so, it is irrational to believe in God.
This makes agnostic atheism the rational default.
Me, I'm a strong atheist. I not only don't believe God exists, I believe God doesn't exist. Many here would say that is as irrational as believing in God. I can't say I disagree. Functionally, there's little difference between me and an agnostic atheist. I just think that a lack of evidence after so much searching is contingent proof that God doesn't exist. If you can logically expect evidence of something, and that evidence does not present itself, it seems safe to assume that thing does not exist. Logically, this doesn't hold, as there is no such thing as evidence for the non-existence of something, outside a contradiction between the proposed thing, and observed reality.
I'm willing to be irrational on that point.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
This thread is a mess. ercatli, is there a point to all of this? From what I've read you are basically ripping on the slogan and running in circles. You keep saying people haven't presented arguments or evidence, etc. Yet we have! Hows this for a general argument we have all presented: 'There is no evidence for a god'. I have seen this theme echoed in every post by RRS members, yet you continue to claim we haven't made an argument, and therefore you don't have to give us positive proof for a god.
Apparently this is a war of wordgames and technicalities! Why don't we get a discussion about theism?
There is no evidence for a god. This is our assertion, our argument, our claim. Since your statements haven't followed with any evidence, ours don't need to follow with evidence to dismiss them. For us to provide evidence against something, you have to make a more specific claim. Or a claim at all. If not, we aren't getting anywhere but back where we started. We might as well talk about the weather.
He keeps asking us to provide evidence for the statement "We've seen no objective evidence for a god or gods" while conveniently avoiding providing any support for what he worships.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Depending on what 'God' you believe in, it needs fixing for many reasons. Sam Harris's book 'The End of Faith' outlines a wide variety of these reasons. I suggest you read it if you are interested in a more educated answer than I can give. In short, believing in a God can have consequences. Again it depends on what 'God' you believe in.
Yes, the logo says "Believe in God? We can fix that". However, it is targeting the types of 'Gods' that are most commonly believed in today, which also follow with some rather ludicrous ideas that are harmful. More specifically we are aiming at the Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. as their belief in 'God' comes with many other beliefs. In fact I would have no problem with a belief in a God as long as that didn't entail following so many more beliefs that can demonize and harm other people.
For instance, the Koran has many passages that demonize non-believers. If you believe the book is true, you should generally be disgusted with any non-believers around you. Is it hard to see that this has consequences?
Another example is Christianity. It clearly demonizes those who want to have pre-marital sex. This is not necessary, and is harmful. The words 'slut' and 'whore' have no meaning if not for this demonizing of multiple sex partner relationships. Atheists are another group that are pretty easily demonized by Christians simply for not believing. Basically, these religious dogmas can cause hatred. Does hatred not need fixing?
More generally, a belief structure that people follow like sheep without really caring empowers the leaders of that belief structure to change the world to their liking. Examples of this are public policy changes like bans on funding stem cell research, abortion bans, laws against oral sex, anti-drug laws, etc. This may seem far from god belief, but the outline on how to live that comes with most god belief can be intrusive and harmful for everyone else.
Now, if you want to talk about simply believing in 'God'... If it entails no other beliefs with it, I'm fine with that. However, it's really just wishful thinking until there is any evidence for it. I personally don't think that any fixing needs to be done for that, but my guess is that there isn't a person on the planet whose god belief does not trail several other beliefs behind it.
So, going back to the original framework....
You said you received an invite to come back. You arrived at the RRS website and found a slogan you felt was pretentious etc. etc. You started a thread on the topic of the RRS slogan, which asks the question, "Believe in god?".
It took you a loooong while, but you appear to have confessed (finally) to having a belief in god. You seem to have admitted that you might possess evidence for your belief but that you haven't proffered any. So I (not anyone else, mind you) must ask a logical question or two.
Do you have a belief in god, any god ? If not, then are you an atheist?
I do have one last suggestion for you, ercatli. Whatever evidence you may possess I trust and hope you are astute enough to conceal such information from those who would confiscate your proofs, publish your grounds, steal the credit and the incredibly enormous, stupendous, and mind-blowing amount of cash that would have been yours.
So again, whatever you do.... please not to provide any deity data to the RRS or anyone else for that matter. In the meantime, and until such time as your works are promulgated, my hope and desire will be that you remain safe, sound and secure.
I'm not joking, being sarcastic or facetious. Best of luck to you.
jcgadfly= excellent post !
Because of the rules in the religious rule books that god believers use. I am tired of being told I need to live by rules set up by control freak patriarchies many centuries ago in order to effectively dominate societies.
I'm tired of watching women suffer because they need to submit to a man or hide themselves so as not to excite his dirty mind.
I'm tired of the child abuse visited upon children by adults who want obedience now and forever and use fear and threats (both physical and psychological) to accomplish this. I'm tired of hearing about teen suicides due to families abandoning and/or condemning members who do not or cannot obey.
I'm tired of being told to be ashamed of my body and its biology.
I'm tired of being told that thinking is arrogant and bad. Exalting ignorance means that real problems never get solved.
I could go on, but I don't like super long posts. Religion justifies meddling in my life by people who would rather fix my faults than their own. If religious groups were to stop this, then I might be willing to take a more live and let live approach. After all, Quakers aren't so bad (except Nixon of course).
"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.
Friendly tone, you mean ? Yeah , well, I guess I picked that up from most of the posters here. Theists run away when we get mean.
Nah, not really. I'm just trying to find out what you're about. Sorry if it's taking too long. Hope I'm not messing up your thread too badly.
So which opinion are you ignoring here ? My definition of atheism ? Cuz if you have a different one, that may be where our problem lies.
As for my claim that religion justifies various kinds of unpleasantness, well, read the bible and the qu'ran. All those believers who use "holy" texts as a justification for atrocities and for generally acting like assholes, are you ignoring them too ?
On the other hand, if you're one of those theists who simply believes there's a higher being of some kind, and who DOESN'T claim intimate knowledge of what this being wants, said, or what food It's allergic to, etc... then I personally have no problem with you whatsoever, and we can stop right here. I'd still think you were being irrational, but convincing you of that would not be worth the effort. (Not many theists like that around. Gee, I wonder why..)
I wasn't making a point, I was asking you a question. Look, if you don't want to answer, fine, I'll shut up about it.
Nobody here disputes that.
Nope. But I would dare to suggest that the nastiness done by theists is sufficient to prove that theism is not a good idea, to put it mildly. I would also say that lately theism is encouraging people to ignore reality, which is potentially very dangerous indeed.
I guess I don't have to do that now, but just to annoy people, I'll reply to your points anyway.
I could probably find something that makes having cancer look good by comparison. That doesn't make cancer a good thing, now does it ?
Just ask them and they'll tell you. What, are you saying they're lying ? I shouldn't trust theists ? That's going to make this conversation really complicated.
No, I won't. It's just common sense. Atheism means realising there's no proof for the existence of God. That's it. If somehow it also means I have to go out and beat up theists, then I want out of this club right now !
Yeah, but I still don't know what you will accept as evidence. Still, I promised I wouldn't ask anymore...
Uh..well, anyone who kills in the name of atheism is being irrational and absurd. Kinda like trying to make the case for pacifism by punching people in the face.
Killing in the name of God, however, makes perfect religious sense, according to the most popular holy books.
Seems like a pretty big difference to me.
I did. I would add that nationalism, the other motivation for suicide bombers offered in the study, could easily be described as a political religion. And I'd repeat my question about suicide bombers in the Balkan (where were they ?).
Now you're not getting the point. There are theists who really DON'T WANT TO distance themselves from those atrocities. They resent the fact that, "in these pc times", they have hide their admiration for those brave christian/muslim/whatever warriors. They WANT there to be evil atheist regimes. At least, that's what they tell me. Are they lying again ?
Oh, and are there any communist quotes that explain how not finding evidence for the existence of God, is somehow a reason to go and kill theists ? Cuz if there are, I'd like to hear some.
Sorry, but I see no problem with distancing myself from something that doesn't make any sense.
'T is done. Anything else ?
All the best to you to. Thanks for replying
Anonymouse:
Thank for your detailed reply. But you seem to have a very poor view of evidence. Let's look at this a bit more.
1. Just because you say something, even if others agree, doesn't make it true.
Before anyone can consider it to be true, you have to provide evidence. Statements you make like the following are just unsupported assertions until you provide good evidence. You seem to be unwilling or unable to do that.
2. The propositions that can be proven depend on the nature of the evidence.
If you provide some documentation of some atrocities committed by theists, this is evidence for the proposition "some theists do nasty things" (a proposition I don't contest). But it is not sufficient evidence for the proposition "theism is worse than non-theism". To demonstrate that proposition, you'd need to show a reasonable estimate of the totality of nastiness done by theists, a reasonable estimate of the totality of the nasty things by non-theists, and then compare the two. Your comparison about cancer being obviously bad is clearly not enough. It may be the truth that theists do nasty things but non-theists do even nastier things, so that theism improves things slightly, albeit only from "very nasty" to "slightly less nasty".
All this is plain logic, but you seem unwilling to be logical.
Now I am not trying to prove anything here, just to ask you all for your evidence for the statements you make. But I will show you how you might approach such a study using real evidence, and so perhaps get a true conclusion.
(i) What are you trying to prove?
I came here and asked why my belief in God needed to be "fixed". Various people responded to the effect that belief in God led to bad outcomes in the world. "Bad" is of course relative to what would occur if no-one, or less people, believed in God. So I suggest the proposition you are trying to defend is this:
Belief in God leads to worse outcomes in the world than non-belief.
Are you happy with that statement?
(ii) How can this be proven?
Drawing on the above discussion, I suggest you need to show four things (I said two before, but I thought of two more overnight):
(a) Have apparent theists done worse things in the world than apparent non-theists?
I say "apparent", because the reality of this will be tested in (b). And like I said, anecdotes or example aren't enough, we need an overall estimate of the nasty things done by both sides, based on work done by competent, objective research. You haven't provided anything remotely like this. Here is what I have found out.
Killings is one measure of general nastiness (not the only one, but useful because there are good estimates available). I gave 5 references in post #46 which seem to me to be competent and objective estimates of killings committed by various groups over the centuries. One reference (an atheist site incidentally) tried to separate atrocities committed by governments of theistic countries, but not the result of theism, from those killings directly the result of theism, so there was an attempt to be objective.
It turned out that the number of killings done by non-theists in the 20th century alone was estimated to be more than those committed by christians in 20 centuries. Not nice, and probably not what you've been led to believe, but that seems to be the best estimates. Now I don't assume that proves any point, beyond that people of all sorts kill other people, but it certainly doesn't support your thesis. If you disagree, it is up to you to dig out real objective evidence, not just assertion.
(b) Are the theism and non-theism beliefs significant causes of these atrocities?
This is important, because both sides claim their own atrocities were not because of the beliefs, but the others were. We need to be able to resolve this objectively. This is a pretty difficult one to test, for several reasons: (1) We can't always know what motivates people, (2) We can't always assume people tell the truth, and (3) people today are not always unbiased in their assessments. So you don't want to be linked to any atheist atrocities, and I don't want to be linked to any theist atrocities. Stands to reason and works both ways.
But we have to make some assessment, or your original proposition cannot be supported. We have to rely on good historians and we have to be circumspect.
You haven't even remotely offered any evidence for this. I don't have much either, but I have found that sociologist and historian Rodney Stark concludes that governments and not the church were clearly responsible for the millions who died in the Europeam conquest of the Americas, and atheism was probably not the main factor in the millions of deaths under Chinese and Russian communism.
Further, in post #45, I gave several references on research which showed that religion was not a major factor in most recent suicide bombings (contrary to popular belief, but we must trust the evidence, mustn't we?).
Then there is the evidence about atheism within communism. Atheism was an integral part of Marx-Leninism as this book outlines. It talks of "Lenin's policy of militant atheism". Lenin sent a letter in 1922 where he said that the "protracted use of brutality" was necessary to achieve the promotion of atheism.
So there is not that much evidence that I could find (but lot's of words from people biased one way or the other), but what there is opposes your proposition.
(c) Is the record of theism and non-theism in the past a reliable indication of the likely behaviour today?
I forgot this before, but it's necessary. Even if we could establish that either theism or non-theism did nasty things in the past, it is the present we are living in, and in which the RRS slogan and your proposition are being applied. Are things likely to be the same, or different?
You're the one trying to prove the proposition, so this is your problem. The only suggestion I can make is that where social and international conditions now are similar to when the atrocities were committed, then we may be able to demonstrate some connection between the past and the present. On this basis, Muslim suicide bombing is obviously current, but so are thousands of executions a year in China by an explicitly anti-religious Government, far more than for any other country (see Amnesty International figures for this). Next closest in time and social conditions would be the communist killings of the 20th century, with the christian killings of the invasion of South America, etc obviously from a world very different to today.
I would think the best you could hope to establish here is a draw, and the available information certainly doesn't make non-theism a clear winner over theism. If you still want to try to prove otherwise, you'll have to get some data.
(d) How do the beneficial effects of theism compare to the beneficial effects of non-theism.
So far we have only considered evil, but good must also be in the equation. You haven't even considered this, let alone offered evidence. Again, I'll give you a start.
We need to look at both history and present day. I will be brief, because this is getting long, but I can provide references.
In history, christians have been at the forefront of much beneficial social reform. Rodney Stark concluded from his study of the rise of christianity in the first few centuries CE that one of the major factors was the christians' superior record in social welfare (there are independent letters of an unsympathetic Roman emperor to demonstrate this), especially in their care of women, children and orphans.
In the present day, many independent studies show that theists have better mental and physical health and general wellbeing, lower rates of addiction and suicide, lower levels of stress and depression, and recover from surgery more quickly. (I have references for these.) They also (and this is important) are much more active in community service roles and much more likely to give time and money to charities (again I have references.) This research is summed up in this telling article, "Faith does breed charity" by atheist journalist Roy Hattersley, who concludes: "The correlation is so clear that it is impossible to doubt that faith and charity go hand in hand..... The only possible conclusion is that faith comes with a packet of moral imperatives that, while they do not condition the attitude of all believers, influence enough of them to make them morally superior to atheists like me. The truth may make us free. But it has not made us as admirable as the average captain in the Salvation Army."
So on this matter, the evidence again does not seem to favour your proposition.
Summing up
To establish that theism brings worse results than other beliefs or lack of belief, requires four propositions to all be established by evidence. I have looked at a range of evidence and found that on 3 out of 4, the evidence is against your proposition, and is at best even on the 4th. I don't say this proves the point opposite to what you are claiming, but it presents a prima facie case that you are quite wrong. You won't like this, because you have probably been taught otherwise, but that is the evidence I have found.
But it is your statement and your burden of proof. I have indicated the sort of ways in which it might be proven, you just need to do the hard work of seeing if you can find objective competent sources that say enough otherwise to outweigh this evidence.
Can I say this next point as kindly as possible? Please don't come up with nothing but bland unsupported assertions and Mickey Mouse references, then say "tis done" when it clearly hasn't even been attempted. I have put a lot of work into this to show you what evidence is, and to not respond in kind would demean your viewpoint. By all means say you don't have time, or interest, or can't find the evidence. or even admit you were wrong after all! But please don't waste our time with more porridge!
And you probably need to do it reasonably quickly if you want me to read it. This will probably be my third last post, so giving an evidence-based response in the next couple of days would be best, if you can please.
Thanks, and best wishes.
The statistics do not support your self-serving conclusions. From the discussion section of: ‘Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies in The Journal of Religion and Society’, you will find the following:
“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies (Figures 1-9). The most theistic prosperous democracy, the U.S., is exceptional, but not in the manner Franklin predicted. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly. The view of the U.S. as a “shining city on the hill” to the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic measures of societal health. Youth suicide is an exception to the general trend because there is not a significant relationship between it and religious or secular factors. No democracy is known to have combined strong religiosity and popular denial of evolution with high rates of societal health. Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of human evolution usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction, and the least theistic nations are usually the least dysfunctional. None of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction. In some cases the highly religious U.S. is an outlier in terms of societal dysfunction from less theistic but otherwise socially comparable secular developed democracies. In other cases, the correlations are strongly graded, sometimes outstandingly so”.
Religion is a dream of the human mind.
You're welcome. You seem to have put a lot of work in this too. I appreciate that, and rest assured I will check out all the sources you provided. You'll probably be gone by the time I read it all, but I'll read it anyway.
I just didn't have a clear picture of what you would consider evidence. I've been surprised before by what some theists consider evidence, but I didn't want to make any assumptions about you, so I asked.
Yeah, let's.
You're shooting yourself in the foot here. You're a theist !
It's a habit I picked up from being surrounded by theists. (Heh, sorry)
Seriously though, you may have missed the bit in my previous post where you asked me to correct you and I did. My assertion goes like this : Sufficient nastiness has been done by theists (because of their theism, if their own words are to be taken seriously) to conclude that theism is not a very healthy hobby.
Ah yes, that one is easy to prove to. Two words : creationist museum.
Yeah, that one's just my opinion, true. But I never said otherwise. I can offer essays to support it if you want.
But like I said and demonstrated with my example, your studies make some pretty strange, unfounded assertions as well, and there are too many unanswered questions.(I'll do my best to get answers, though. I'll try to contact some of the people involved)
Since atheism doesn't provide any killing orders, it stands to reason that anyone who kills for atheism is getting his motivation somewhere else. Really, what's the problem here ? Are you saying my definition for atheism is wrong ?
Non-theism would include general, non-specific insanity, so that's not really fair. Anyway, my proposition went like this : " Sufficient nastiness has been done by theists (because of their theism, if their own words are to be taken seriously) to conclude that theism is not a very healthy hobby. ". Heck, I'll put in words even you can agree with : "The fact that there are people who believe it's okay to kill, discriminate, etc..in the name of a supernatural being that they can't prove the existence of, is a bad thing."
What kind of proof would you need for that ? Is all the info on this site really not enough ?
The one I didn't make. Oh dear, now what ? Okay, my bad. This is because I replied to points of yours that weren't relevant anymore, "just to annoy people", in my last post. My apologies.
If this was still relevant, I would be asking you what you would consider "reasonable" in this context. Annoying, I know, but experience has taught me it's best to ask.
Show me were I'm being illogical.
Okay, here are my statements again :
" Sufficient nastiness has been done by theists (because of their theism, if their own words are to be taken seriously) to conclude that theism is not a very healthy hobby. ".
"The fact that there are people who believe it's okay to kill, discriminate, etc..in the name of a supernatural being that they can't prove the existence of, is a bad thing."
The second one I'm sure you agree with. The first one you might like some evidence for, I suppose.
Sounds like you're finally getting ready to explain what you'd consider evidence, so let's read on :
Well, no. I already told you that in my last post. You must have missed that, what with all the other replies you got. You are forgiven.
I'm guessing that the statements I did make don't offer enough incentive for you to fix your belief in god ? Well, I truly don't get that. Surely the fact that there's no evidence for your claim should be reason enough ?
Well, I'm not trying to prove an assertion I didn't make.
Seriously, I feel bad now. You put in all this work and it's not even relevant. Again, sorry !
Not my thesis. Crap, I feel really bad now. Sorry you had to type all that again.
Still, you're right that it doesn't prove any point. Take out all the killings done by theism, and you'd still have less killings. Or does the study offer proof that the non-theists would then make up for the difference ?
Why would I disagree with facts ? The conclusions drawn from those facts are another matter entirely.
Non-theism is a belief ? I'm sorry, I'm confused now. I'll have to go and read that study in more detail. Are they talking about atheism ? *sigh* Atheism isn't a belief. This is not an assertion, it's a simple fact.
Agreed.
I have a problem with linking atheism to any atrocities alltogether. I already explained why. This is about what atheism is, not what some people want it to be. Once again, atheism offers no justification for murder. This is not an assertion, it's a simple fact. Just as it's a fact that religion does offer justification for murder. I haven't heard you deny that yet.
Again, sorry, not my proposition.
Untill someone explains to me just exactly how atheism (i.e. the fact that there is no evidence for god) is an excuse to kill theists, I don't have to prove a thing.
Interesting. Thanks for that. I'll go read that asap. Can't say much about it now.
The evidence for it not being a major factor was rather weak. It made a good case for there being other factors, though.
Nevertheless, like I said, if we are to believe that politics plays the major role, then it brings up a lot of relevant questions that the study does not go into. Further study is necessary.
Once again, does any of this explain how atheism (i.e. the fact that there is no evidence for the existence of god) orders anyone to use violence of any kind ? Doesn't look like it, and therefore no proposition of mine is opposed in any way.
Is there any data that proves the Chinese or other communist governments are killing people because there's no proof that God exists ? If not, then I'm afraid I can safely ignore this data.
Again, not my proposition. Still, many things here I take issue with, but like you said, this is getting long, and by the time I'll have checked out all your sources, you'll be gone.
Claims like this do come up on the board all the time, and from what I remember, they're not always supported by facts, like the theist claim that they came up with the concept of hospitals, etc..
So anyway, I'll research your sources, try to find the ones that have been refuted here already, but we'll have to start another thread for this, or this thread'll be even more messy.
Actually, I have been taught, and continue to be taught the theist point of view, so I'm liking this just fine.
Anyhoo, like I keep repeating, I made no claim that's being disproved by anthing you listed here. You've given me some interesting stuff to read in your last point, but unless there's proof in there of the existence of god, I'm pretty sure I'll just end up where I started.
Summing up, if you still have a problem with this site and it's slogan, consider this : There's only one thing that everybody here agrees on : That there is no evidence for the existence of God.
Well, the hard work that supports the statements I did make, has already been done by the kind people of this site. I suggest you start with the essays.
Well, part of the problem there is that you want evidence for things I didn't say, and you have quite a few unsupported assertions yourself.
If I've been glib or disrespectful anywhere, I apologise.
You did, yes, and I appreciate it. Like I said, I feel bad you had to write all this irrelevant stuff (some of it was interesting, though), just because you missed that bit where I corrected you in my last post. Sorry again.
Porridge ?
Sorry, but I can't do quick and check all your sources at the same time. And you won't have time to read all the stuff on this site that supports the statements I did make, if you're only gonna be here for a couple of days.
Oh well, I'm looking forward to your replies to the other posters. Very nice of you to devote so much of your time to this.
Same to you. Hope you don't go away feeling like you wasted your time here. Always nice to hear from a theist who doesn't make threaths all the time. So all the best to you, and do come again.
Here is a quote from Sam Harris's "Atheist Manifesto", which I hope will add some data to the discussion on this topic. As he states, correlational data doesn't point to a definate conclusion, but does make the case that non-theism is compatible with a healthy society. In fact I would take this data as a big step toward saying "theism is worse than non-theism".
"While most Americans believe that getting rid of religion is an impossible goal, much of the developed world has already accomplished it. Any account of a "god gene" that causes the majority of Americans to helplessly organize their lives around ancient works of religious fiction must explain why so many inhabitants of other First World societies apparently lack such a gene. The level of atheism throughout the rest of the developed world refutes any argument that religion is somehow a moral necessity. Countries like Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark and the United Kingdom are among the least religious societies on Earth. According to the United Nations' Human Development Report (2005) they are also the healthiest, as indicated by measures of life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate and infant mortality. Conversely, the 50 nations now ranked lowest in terms of human development are unwaveringly religious. Other analyses paint the same picture: The United States is unique among wealthy democracies in its level of religious literalism and opposition to evolutionary theory; it is also uniquely beleaguered by high rates of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy, STD infection and infant mortality. The same comparison holds true within the United States itself: Southern and Midwestern states, characterized by the highest levels of religious superstition and hostility to evolutionary theory, are especially plagued by the above indicators of societal dysfunction, while the comparatively secular states of the Northeast conform to European norms. Of course, correlational data of this sort do not resolve questions of causality--belief in God may lead to societal dysfunction; societal dysfunction may foster a belief in God; each factor may enable the other; or both may spring from some deeper source of mischief. Leaving aside the issue of cause and effect, these facts prove that atheism is perfectly compatible with the basic aspirations of a civil society; they also prove, conclusively, that religious faith does nothing to ensure a society's health.
Countries with high levels of atheism also are the most charitable in terms of giving foreign aid to the developing world. The dubious link between Christian literalism and Christian values is also belied by other indices of charity. Consider the ratio in salaries between top-tier CEOs and their average employee: in Britain it is 24 to 1; France 15 to 1; Sweden 13 to 1; in the United States, where 83% of the population believes that Jesus literally rose from the dead, it is 475 to 1. Many a camel, it would seem, expects to squeeze easily through the eye of a needle."
Read more at: http://www.rationalresponders.com/an_atheist_manifesto_by_sam_harris
The article also addresses some of the bad things done in the name of religion, and some of the bad things religion has done. As I said before, sam harris's book 'The End of Faith' is great for reading about why theism is bad.
More Data: Divorce rate among atheists is lower than Jews and Christians
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
Sorry, history is not my strong suit, so I don't know that I have the best list of religious atrocities, but the Crusades, Inquisition, and 9/11 should be decent examples of bad things done specifically corellated with theistic belief. To the best of my knowledge, non-beleif in a God has never caused or been specifically correlated with anything as bad as these events.
Baseball fever...Catch it!!! That's a Major League Baseball slogan. Maybe I should ask Derek Jeter on why he wants me to catch baseball fever and how he's going to go about doing it.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Well, thank you everyone for your great interest. Those who say this thread is boring and going nowhere don't seem to have convinced you all! But I think it is beginning to go round in circles, and take too much of my time, so I plan to make this my second last post. I'll try to make a quick response to you all, then my last post will sum up what I've learnt from this little exercise.
nigelTheBold:
Your main points seem to remain the same. 1. "There is no extant objective evidence for the existence of God." and 2. "I cannot "prove" there exists no evidence for God". (Both of those statements are quotes from your post.)
Can you not see they are contradictory? If #2 is true then you have no justification for saying #1. Simple as that.
Now I don't disagree with #2 - it is impossible to prove universal negative statement unless one knows everything. So, yes, it would be unreasonable of me to expect you to prove that. But that is not my point. I have only asked you to prove it to get to the point where you admit that you can't. But having got to that point, I again ask my main question:
If you can't prove there is no evidence for the existence of God, why do you keep saying so confidently that there is none?
Surely the "rational" and accurate statement is more circumspect? All along I have merely suggested that this site's rhetoric overstates the case. Your post demonstrates it in your own words. Thanks.
Vermillion:
I'm sorry, I can't really help the mess, and my point has been clear from my opening post - can the people on this site demonstrate the validity of the rhetoric, or is the rhetoric overstated? That's all.
Please see my response to nigelTheBold above. If you can't demonstrate a statement, then perhaps you shouldn't make it so confidently.
This is strange logic. In one sentence you criticise me for not making an argument and having a discussion about theism, and soon after you say I haven't backed up my statements. Which is it? The fact is, I'm not making any argument, just asking you guys (collectively) to justify the statements you make. You all seem reluctant to do that, because so many of them can't be justified because they're universal negatives, as in my comment above. So .....
If you can't prove there is no God, why do you keep saying so confidently that there is none?
Surely some circumspection or qualification is required.
You also seem to think I have some obligation to make statements and then justify them, but I have no such obligation. If I make a proposition about my own belief and ask you to believe it, then I have an obligation to justify it. But I'm not interested in playing that game right now. So as the Masked Man said to Inigo Montoya: "Get used to disappointment!" : )
Finally, re Sam harris, please see my comments to Hasan below. Showing something bad has occurred is the easy part. So is making unsupported assertions as to the causes. Demonstrating that theism is the culprit, and nothing else is, is much more difficult, and Harris hasn't even attempted that. If you want to attempt the proof in a"rational" way, I suggest you try a method like I outline in my post #67.
jcgadfly:
Yep, inconvenient, isn't it? When I make statements I am asking other people to believe, or in an argument, then I provide justification. But I'm not presenting my case - I'm just asking you to justify yours. And you (collectively) don't seem to be able to. So maybe you should say different things - see the above comments.
Wonko:
No mystery. I said at the start I believe in God, and I meant it. It just seems that you guys expect, even demand, a theist argue his/her case for belief. I'm quite happy to do that, and I do in other places. But I set myself a different goal here, simply to question and test the apparently confident statement made on this forum in this site's slogan. And I'm not being diverted from that.
Thanks for your best wishes. But the rest of this is really a bit silly. Evidence, reasons, probabilities are not proofs. You guys have (I guess, I haven't really seen them much) evidence and reasons for what you believe and don't believe, but not proofs (as we are seeing). So do I, and neither do I have "proof". If your comment about making a motza out of my amazing proofs had any logical validity at all, it would apply equally (and equally non-sarcastically) to your "proofs". As for my providing deity data to you and the others, don't you think it is interesting? You expect me to argue with you, so when I don't, and instead simply ask you to justify what you say, you guys get all twitchy, you make silly comments like yours, and you say a lot of stuff that isn't actually relevant to the questions I asked. Sorry about that, but why shouldn't I focus on one thing, and that is asking you to justify your advertising?
anniet:
Hi! I'm truly sorry if people have told you to live by rules you don't believe in, and sorry that you feel bad about that. But I have never told you anything (something many other people here are complaining about!), least of all how to behave, nor do I make a habit of it to other people. So if you are mounting an argument as to why my belief in God needs fixing, it doesn't apply to me.
If you are making a more general argument about the evils of religion, I suggest you read my post #67 to see how such an argument might be framed, because what you have said doesn't really address the main issues. For example, if christians have interfered in other people's lives, so did atheists in communist Russia. Any valid argument would therefore have to analyse those to situations and draw some valid conclusions from the data - which neither you nor anyone here has yet done.
Hasan:
Hi. Nice quote. At least you are offering some statements, though not really evidence. It amounts to a critique of the US (as Harris's title indicates). But:
(1) Can you show that the alleged nastiness stems from theism rather than other possible causes, such as patriotism, defending wealth and privilege, or US over-emphasis on weapons (lack of gun control internally, military interventionist policies internationally), etc? Until you can make a good case there, it would seem a bit far-fetched to blame theism for what a government does. If you check out some of the references in my post #67, you'll find that some of those sources attempt to separate politics from religion, and you need to do the same before you have any sort of case. And whatever principles you use to connect politics and religion would then need to be applied to the communist governments and atheism. I'm sure ways can be found that give you the result you want in both cases, but they may not be objective and fair - so you'd have to convince us all (or me at least) of that.
(2) Show that atheism hasn't got a worse record? The evidence might suggest that it has done far worse in just a short time. of course, you can argue that communism isn't atheism, but then you'd have to counter the argument that on the same principle, western governments are not theism. Sauce for the goose and gander and all that.
This "rational" business, evidence and demonstration are not so easy, are they? It's easy to make statements, but hard to back the up in an objective manner that covers all the bases. So hard that, in 71 posts so far, none of you atheists have really attempted it - some have of course offered arguments, but no-one has offered anything that a reasonable person would call comprehensive and objective evidence.
Anonymouse:
Thanks for going to so much trouble, but I'm afraid it is you who has wasted your time. Let me have one last attempt.
The question I asked was "why does my belief in God need fixing?" The answer often given was that theism brings nastiness. So you say that your proposition is (your words) "Sufficient nastiness has been done by theists (because of their theism, if their own words are to be taken seriously) to conclude that theism is not a very healthy hobby." So, suppose I agree that nastiness has been done by theists (which I have already agreed to). So what if I change to something else, specifically atheism, and what if that produces more nastiness? Then I have only made the world worse.
So you see, your proposition is insufficient. Until you demonstrate that there is even one alternative worldview that produces less nastiness, you cannot convince me logically that I should jump.
So that is why I suggested the alternative proposition that compares worldviews. And that is why all your comments are a waste of time (sorry) until you do. But I understand why you are reluctant to do so, because the data suggests that atheism might indeed have been a contributory cause of worse nastiness than theism has been a contributory cause of. Of course it might not, I haven't presented all the data, but if you want me to jump ship and join the good ship SS Atheism, you've got to show me that I and the world would be better off. Which you haven't even attempted, let alone done.
Instead of hanging on to your previous statements, try to think of actually trying to convince me to change viewpoint, and you'll see you have to show that my present view is worse, and not better, than the atheism you espouse.
Until you address this issue I can and will keep saying that "fixing" my theism would only leave me and the world in a worse state.
Sorry. But thanks again for your interest.
Thank you one and all.
ercatli , I read you as a nice guy. Seems language and definitions are a major part of our dispute. Traditional "theism" says things like "god nailed his special jesus guy, alter self to a cross, to save his human creation that got corrupted from birth" ..... The variations vary but surly you can see why so many of us counter the majority of religious theists and say no to that.
Anti-theism is atheism. Pantheism is quite different, and as Dawkins said, it's sex up atheism. To me it's basically a non dogmatic scientific debate about the nature of consciousness and all things. My intuition regarding all this demands the label atheist. I prefer, however, to simply say, "I am god as you" .... What isn't god?
LOL , thanks for hanging out.
Atheism Books.
I never demanded or expected you to argue (or for that matter formally debate) your case for belief, now did I.
Really, you need to learn to laugh at yourself a lot more often. The slogan states,"We can fix that".... which places emphasis on the can, as in, it's something we can do for you. But you have to want to rid yourself of the holy shackles and, in fact, any theist wanting to do that must participate in the process. Since you didn't want to participate, I can only assume you prefer to remain a theist.
And once again... I don't want you to come out of your faith shell if you don't want to. By the way, you have been diverted from that on several occasions. You apparently just aren't aware of that fact or else you've forgotten.
Your welcome.
yawn..... A negative cannot be proven and burden remains on you and all theists.
No, I don't want you to argue with me, I NEVER DID !
Justify what I say? Are you back on the slogan, again ??? If that's what you are meaning here, I didn't justify it. I merely explained what I think the website creators meant when they developed the slogan. Check back on anything I've written in this thread and tell me otherwise.
I didn't get twitchy and further to quell your obvious excitement at the prospect...you didn't get under my skin, either. As for my comments being silly; yes, absolutely some of them were, intentionally. As for what may be relevant; this thread would appear to be a "group setting" and I don't think a single individual should solely be determining what is and what is not relevant... do you?
At laasssst!
You did focus on one thing and in this group setting you wanted everyone to answer for a question that would've been far better directed at those who would have the best answer for you. "Those", would be the handful of people (or possibly just one person, I don't know) who developed the slogan.
So if you truly were wanting to question the RRS slogan, wouldn't there have been several better ways of getting the answer. I, for one, don't believe that was your purpose here. I think your ultimate desire was to see how many agnostics/atheists you could rile up, how many times you could get under skin, how many times you could avoid any other questions posed to you (other than the single one in the slogan.) I can only speak for myself, but in these areas, IMO, you failed.
OK, well, in avoiding the questions, I guess you didn't fail ; - )
Hugs and kisses,
Wonko
You're welcome.
1. There is no objective evidence for the existence of God.
This is a statement about our knowledge of God. Perhaps I should have said, we have no objective evidence for God; that may have made the meaning clearer. I thought you might be able to figure that out from context. This is a contingent statement, as all statements about knowledge are contingent. New knowledge may falsify this statement. But, for now, this statement is true. We have no objective evidence for God.
If you have knowledge that I don't, that is, objective evidence for the existence of God, I'd love to hear it. Really, I would.
2. I cannot prove evidence for the existence of God won't be found.
This is slightly reworded from what you present. If what you present is a direct quote, and the meaning is unclear in context, then I apologize. It's not quite what I meant. If there is undiscovered evidence for the existence of God, it may or may not be discovered.
You should see how it doesn't contradict the first. Statement #1 is a statement of the state of our current knowledge; statement #2 is a statement of the possibility for conclusively disproving the existence of God.
This is what I meant. If I was unclear in my messages, I apologize. I do strive for clarity.
What you propose is ludicrous: that believing in God is rational based on evidence that might be found in the future, in spite of the state of our current knowledge. This is patently irrational. It's belief based on wishful thinking and personal desire. It's based on a flawed view of our knowledge of the universe.
Several reasons: first, most proposed Gods contradict our current knowledge of reality. (This is why so many of us are asking you to provide the God which you'd like disproved. The definition of "God" is a bit squidgy, and providing an exhaustive list of the reasons why each individual God can't exist is, well, exhausting.)
Most reasons revolve around the contradictive nature of God and our current knowledge of the universe. If you disregard all Gods who are in direct violation of our current knowledge, about the only possible God left is one of the proposed panentheistic Gods. (A pantheistic God is really just the natural universe, by definition.)
As a panentheistic God is still just a God of the Gaps, a paint-over of our ignorance, there is no explanatory power in the concept of that God. Therefore, that God effectively doesn't exist currently, either, no matter whether it actually exists or not. That might change in the future, as our knowledge is extended and modified to account for new evidence. At some point, a panentheistic God may become necessary.
I doubt it, though. But that's my irrational stance.
As for me (a hard atheist):
If a friend of mine said he owned an elephant in his apartment, I might believe him because he's a good friend. If I visited him regularly, and I never saw the elephant, or elephant droppings, or a watering dish, or a bowl of Elephant Chow, I might start to doubt the existence of this elephant. If, after many years, and many insistences that the elephant "is just in the next room," but an exploration of the house never once turned up evidence for the elephant, I'd seriously begin to distrust my friend's sanity, as well as his ownership of an elephant.
That is the case for God. In thousands of years of searching for God, in hundreds of years of scientific exploration of reality, in dozens of years of personal search, I have never once seen evidence for the existence of God. Further, nobody else has ever discovered objective evidence for the existence of God, and had it published and checked. Not once.
So, yes, my argument boils down to, "There is no evidence for the existence of God." Now, I realize this doesn't disprove the existence of God. I fully believe that it drives the chances of the existence of God ever lower. The more we search, and the more we don't find, the lower the chances of ever finding.
You present belief in God and non-belief in God as if it were a 50/50 proposition. It isn't. The existence and non-existence of God doesn't have the same likelihood as a coin toss.
I am more than willing to admit there might be a God. As I see it, though, the chances of ever finding objective evidence for the existence of God is asymptotically approaching 0. The more we learn about the universe, and the more we don't find evidence for God, the fewer places there is for God to hide. The more we learn without finding God, the harder my atheism becomes.
We're a long way away from knowing everything about the universe. God might still be there, lurking around the Planck scale, or hiding in the first couple of attoseconds of the Big Bang. But the chances of that are vanishingly small.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Neat, I got another reply. Didn't expect one, so thanks for that.
You are making waaaay too many assumptions here. I don't want you to do anything. What you do with your life is up to you. I am merely pointing out that there is no proof for the existence of God. I've been told that makes me an atheist. The end.
Still, we had a nice talk. All the best and do come again (so we can talk about those last studies and figures you mentioned. Lots of stuff in there that makes no sense at all.)
This proves ercatli does not understand rational/logical discourse.
Even in the strict sense logical sense, this statement is not logical. You would only need to prove at at least one against his existence. That's it, if the word 'prove' is being used strictly.
Disproving any or all known arguments for God is not the logical approach - failure to disprove really doesn't strictly count, because that does not prove that there is a flaw in the proof for God that has been overlooked.
Proving any or all known arguments for God are invalid does not prove either that there is no valid argument.
If we could prove the non-existence of God, that in itself would prove that there are no valid arguments for God.
There cannot be both a valid proof for God and a valid disproof for God - first 'law' of logic. Therefore, if presented with what claims to be proof of non-existence, and also another argument that claims to be a valid proof of existence, we can be certain that at least one of these claims is not based on a valid argument.
The core problem is that an exhaustive proof of 'non-existence' (assuming the entity posited is not self-contradictory in its definition) is, in general, not possible. To take failure to disprove existence as contributing in any way to indicating the likelihood of a proposed entity actually existing is highly irrational.
The only strict way to address this issue, when one side claims to have seen no valid proofs for existence, is for the other side to provide an argument that they claim is valid. Then it is fair to demand the first person to at least find a flaw in it. He DOES NOT have to 'disprove' it, merely demonstrate at least one prima facie flaw in its chain of reasoning. Then it is back to the other side, and so on.
Here is another clear example of faulty 'reasoning' by ercatli:
Another flawed statement. Can be argued for only in a very crude and simplistic sense, not the way we really think of these things. We can do separate harmful and beneficial actions to the same person, one does not necessarily offset or cancel out the other.
"Less harmful" is NOT really equivalent to "beneficial" in any positive sense, even relatively. Beneficial and Harmful things are different sorts of things.
This is related to more obvious fallacy that The absence of Good is automatically Evil, or vice versa, or that without the existence of Evil we could not have or apprehend Good.
Just two explicit examples of the flawed reasoning of ercatli, obviously there are many less easily isolated and demonstrated examples within this long sequence of dodging and misrepresenting the fundamental issues.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
There's a conservative jest lurking but I'll resist the temptation to spew it forth from mine trunk.
Well, thank you everyone - 80 comments on my small original post! I have read each one and appreciate your efforts and time. I guess we should all get out more?? : )
I thought I'd try to summarise my experience here, for whatever it might be worth. As I've said, my original post was only after an email invitation, and almost accidental. But I did decide to try a different approach as an experiment, to speak minimally about my own beliefs (I am not usually so reticent!), present a minimal target, and see how you all responded to questions and challenges. Here's my conclusions ...
1. A genuine compliment
Whatever else I say, most of you guys were polite towards me, even though I sometimes aggravated you - there were a few exceptions, but I compliment you and thank you for your courtesy.
2. Rationality.
I think we all agree that rationality requires logical argument based on evidence. But I'm sorry, I didn't see all that much of this. Thoughtfulness, committed viewpoints, patience and courtesy, yes, all good - but evidence, not much. A quick summary....
2.1 Is theism dangerous?
When I asked "Why should my belief in God need fixing", many of you responded that theism is dangerous to me and to the world, making mention of various alleged and true "nasty" things theists have done in the past. But this isn't enough. For example, in my work as an environmental manager, I was often involved in setting up investigations to determine causes, significance and effects of ecological problems. To do this, we had to demonstrate to a reasonable statistical precision that a hypothesis was true or false, and rule out or in other hypotheses.
While this question of the harm caused by theism cannot be resolved in such a precise statistical fashion, I expected to get a similar approach - structured and comprehensive - that is what rationality demands. But I didn't get it. A few random allegations and examples, virtually no documented evidence, (the small quote from Sam Harris wasn't much evidence, but little more than assertion) and absolutely no attempt to demonstrate that any other options would not have worse effects.
Even when I offered an outline of an approach to resolving this question plus some evidence, no-one except Anonymouse seemed interested (for which thanks!), and in the end he didn't want to follow through with a structured approach and evidence.
So no-one established anything by evidence. And no-one even tried to demonstrate that if I left theism I wouldn't be in more danger and be more dangerous to others. It's like someone comes to me and says "You should quit your neighbourhood, it is way too dangerous. 10 deaths per year from handguns! Come and live in mine." But when I ask, how many deaths in their neighbourhood, they have no interest in the question. And when I research it, I find out it is 15 deaths per year.
So, I have looked at a fair bit of data, some of which I referenced, and it leads to several conclusions, some clear, some tentative:
(i) The data seem to show that religious belief is not the prime factor in most atrocities in the past, despite the rhetoric. Historians and social researchers seem to agree on this.
(ii) If we interpret the figures, contrary to how the experts suggest, as if religion was the main or only factor, we find that atheism killed many more (possibly 3 times) in half a century as christianity killed in 2000 years. (Remember, if you don't like the linking of atheism with communism, etc, then you can go back to point (i), and not link christianity with those atrocities either.)
(iii) In the present day, the conditions of the past don't generally apply, and so we cannot simply extrapolate. The evidence indicates that theists are much more involved (time and money) in projects which benefit the community than are non-believers.
That's the info as best as I can find it. No-one offered significant counter. I don't think it makes a valid argument for either "side", but if you want to try to make it an argument, you have a lot of work to do.
Finally, I find it interesting that when I presented the information, here, I used the evidence I could find and I presented both sides, but when you guys discuss the question, you present almost no real evidence and you only present one side. Yet atheists tend to claim it is the theists who lack an evidential basis and open minds! It seems like a case of role reversal!!
2.2 Fixing my belief.
Many people asked what particular brand of theism I hold to. They said this would help them fix me. But no-one really answered the obvious question - if there are thousands of hypothetical gods, do you need thousands of separate "proofs" to fix theism? Aren't there some killer arguments that apply across the board? Apparently not, which is telling in itself.
And so we arrive at the question that seemed to occupy most of our collective time - whether there is any evidence for theism and whether atheism can be proved.
The general view seemed to be that the burden of proof was on theists, because they are making the claims. But I wasn't making claims, and you all were, so that didn't work so well. Many said you were sure God didn't exist, but agreed that you couldn't prove such a general negative statement, without seeing that if you couldn't carry the burden of proof, you should modify your statements. Some of you agreed that your statements were exaggerated or overstatements, but didn't seem worried about that!
The statement that there is no evidence for theism was repeated often like a dogma but never supported by evidence - again without seeing the irony and double standards. Now the dictionary defines evidence as "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid; that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof" - which means that evidence is not the argument, but information in support of the argument.
I'm sure most of you are familiar with the classic lines of argument here. None of them has been comprehensively proved or disproved, no-one really expects that. But they are all very much alive as arguments that may point to the probability that God does or does not exist, and cumulatively may comprise a "proof" that the probability of God existing is high or low. And they are all based on evidence of some kind. Here is a quick list:
Now before you rush in, I'm not trying to argue here, I'm simply summarising what philosophers and philosophical text books have discussed for a very long time. I know there are answers to each argument, and answers to the answers, and ..... My point is simply this. Those arguments are based on evidence - the universe, humanity, history, etc. To say there is no evidence as the dictionary defines it is plain wrong. The truth is that the evidence is all around us, but interpreting it is difficult - some believe it points in one direction, some believe it points in another. A fairer presentation of your views would surely be that you don't believe the arguments show that God 's existence is likely - a much more circumspect conclusuon!
This illustrates one reason why I didn't choose to present my belief and my reasons for believing - the reasons could be argued over interminably, been there, done that on other forums, there's not really much point. Everyone ends up where they started except for the occasional person who is still making up their mind. And such argument would be even more frustrating if we have such differing views of what comprises evidence.
So I conclude that you (collectively) have offered no substantial evidence that anyone changing from theism to atheism would improve either their life or the world - the evidence seems to slightly oppose that idea. And no-one really offered any reasons why I should think your statements about the non-existence of God are true.
I know some of you disliked my concentration on the slogan, but slogans describe what people think and want others to think, and they influence opinions - that's why advertisers so often use slogans. So I conclude that a more honest and accurate slogan for you would be "Believe in God? We'd like to change that, if you were willing and if you accept on faith that you and the world will be better off." Obviously not as catchy, but isn't truth more important?
3. A genuine apology.
I am a member of several atheist forums, and I don't usually post in the manner I have here. I chose to experiment with a different approach, and I decided to be provocative and a little tongue-in-cheek, in response to what I saw as a provocative and exaggerated slogan. I tried to be polite and not use offensive language, but it is obvious some didn't appreciate my approach. Please accept my apologies for any offense, it wasn't intended, but no-one's perfect - least of all me.
So thank you for letting me play in your playground for a while. I have learned some things I didn't expect. Hopefully it hasn't been a total waste of time for you all either. And if there's anyone out there who is interested in considering a change of mind, I'd be happy to talk more.
Best wishes, and goodnight! : )
ercatli, I'm to tired to think, but what is your god definition and have you taken a religious label ? Did you say christian? Starting a new thread, or a few, would be cool.
Atheism Books.
You want evidence of the lack of evidence??? WTF are you smoking, ercatii???
None of those arguments for God you listed remotely requires a God, and they don't provide a plausible explanation, consistent with the same collection of experience and observation you call on to to justify the first cause and fine-tuning arguments, to explain where your God thing originated. Trying explain a mystery with a greater mystery is utterly brain-dead.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
No, I get out enough as it is.
Yes, and your experiment with us was OBVIOUS to me looooong before you announced that it was, in fact, 'an experiment'. I cannot be the only RRS member who noticed this. You know, some people might view being experimented with as being toyed with, or better still, being manipulated.
Yes, preferred, but a single strand of evidence often isn't enough to conclude a logical argument has been made.
I'll now speak only for myself: Knowing that you were just here to "test" us, to experiment with us, I saw absolutely, positively no single valid reason to do anything but return your minimal participation with minimal answers, and occasionally silly answers. I would venture to guesstimate that this thread would be perhaps ten to twenty times longer (more pages & posts) had RRS members thought you genuinely wanted information, data, evidence and yes, some measure of disproofs. That is to say, genuinely wanted because your mind was open and not already made up....or that you were not gaming with us, which clearly you were.
Since I didn't respond much in these areas, I won't address them now. I'll leave it to those who surrendered far more time than I did in their responses to you, if they so choose.
Yes, my early thought about you was that your mind was made up. I just wasn't certain which side you were on....especially since, as I noted, it was obvious to me you were testing us. However, to be completely fair, people do change their beliefs. In my case, it had nothing to do with 'making up my mind'. Actual change can happen. It happened to me.
I realize it's possible some may need you to define/describe the purpose of what a slogan is and what it accomplishes...but reaaally... that sentence above, in some manner of speaking, indicates how once in a while you seem to be writing as if your entire audience was a group of 9 and 10 year olds. Not insulting to me, but my lady friend looking over my shoulder at the moment thinks it is. Her word was 'opprobrious'.
OK well, it's an idea. Maybe those at the top of RRS will consider it and make the change.
I leave this stand (with the exception of highlighting 5 of your words) and I thank you (GENUINELY) for stopping by and posting.
I am glad to see this discussion coming to an end, and yet unsatisfied. If you can't offer proof for a theistic beleive, and yet demand that we offer proof for anti-theistic belief, we might as well talk about crackers and cheese... The conversation goes no where if we are simply talking about how neither of us have any evidence of what we are saying.
Of course, what should be very obvious is that there was no evidence presented for theism, as it would have fallen apart so easily.
You seem to misunderstand what "making a claim" is. Atheism makes no claim whatsoever. It refutes a claim. The rational atheist is agnostic, and admits there is no evidence, and so makes no claim about the existence of God. They make a claim about the state of knowledge of the existence of God. You seem to be subtly shifting that to be a positive claim, when it is not. There is no evidence required to refute a claim. The only way to shut down the refutation is to present evidence. Ergo, the burden of proof is on the positive claimant.
My belief that God doesn't exist has no bearing on the irrationality of the belief in God. My belief itself may be irrational, but that is not the claim under discussion -- the claim that God exists (the theist position).
You could say that "the lack of belief in God is the claim under discussion," but that's ludicrous. It is still a discussion of the claims of theists, as without that, atheism wouldn't even exist, let alone "make claims."
There is only one epistemology that has given consistent, coherent, verifiable results: rational empiricism, as embodied by the scientific method.
Most of the things you present are either completely false (there are many combinations of physical constants that result in stable, rich universes -- this has been demonstrated several times), logically contradictory (if God is the first mover, than He is uncaused, leading to the same logical conundrum), appeals to ignorance (we have no idea what took place at the time of the big bang, let alone what might have "preceded" it, if precendence has meaning when time doesn't even exist), or completely irrelevant (personal emotions are completely subjective, and therefore do not constitute evidence for anything outside our own emotions). They don't constitute evidence in any meaningful sense of the word.
Science is the only objective way of discovering the nature of reality. Belief in something that lacks scientific evidence (objective evidence, as I called it in earlier posts) is irrational.
Believers in God are in the same boat as believers in bigfoot, UFOs, Nessie, magick, and honest politicians. Rational belief requires rational evidence, and all these things lack rational evidence.
As was pointed out time and again, the slogan is perfectly accurate. A mechanic "can" fix your car. Your participation is required, however. That doesn't change the truth of the statement. Anyone with a whit of sense can reckon for themselves whether they are willing to participate or not, and so your verbose version is unnecessary.
The only offence was your wilful ignorance, and the way you ignored or glossed over posts that addressed specific issues (such as the accuracy of the slogan), and your inability to grasp the distinction between a positive claim and the refutation of that claim.
I suspect the major problem came because you were using "rational" in a rather squidgy way. "Rationalism" is usually related to empiricism. When discussing evidence, hearsay and subjective feelings are not sufficient. Only consistent exploration using the scientific method can result in any concrete results. All other results are suspect, and cannot form a basis for rational thought or discussion.
That's not to say that the practice of science is always rational. There is a such thing as irrational science, as well, such as the search for bigfoot, or the pursuit of string theory in spite of the lack of testable predictions. (String theory makes lots of predictions, but none of them are testable at the current time.) All I'm saying is, rational belief requires objective evidence. Otherwise the belief is irrational.
Atheism isn't a belief. It's a lack of belief. And so, it requires no evidence, as it should be the default position for anyone pursuing a rational world-view.
But then again, we all have irrational beliefs. There's no such thing as a perfectly-rational person.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Yeah, I can say I'm a tiny bit dissatisfied as well...but it's not totally unexpected. As I've read over many older posts, I've noticed that every so often, someone opens the RRS front door, strolls on in and wishes for answers to be given even when that someone had no intention of seriously considering a departure from theistic beliefs.
Since we are here primarily to give theists rational responses, it just seems pitiful when something like this scenario plays itself out.
I began to suspect something, some hidden purpose or agenda after this exchange from posts #1 and #3 between Sapient and our friend ercatli...
Sapient:"Which of the several thousand gods to choose from do you believe in? Why? How long have you been a believer? What is your most compelling evidence that he/she/it actually exists?"
ercatli: "I'd be interested to see if you could name several thousand gods that anyone seriously believes in, but perhaps rationality allows exaggeration? But this isn't the point. Your slogan didn't specify any particular god, just any god, or perhaps the God. And as for my most compelling evidence, I thought that was what you were doing - fixing me! I didn't advertise I could fix you!! This response hardly fills me with doubt."
The portion I have bolded is where ercatli wanted to take us to waltz. He is well aware that in order to truly rule out A possible god, the known universe and beyond would have to be searched inch by inch. So as long as he sat behind his wall and experimented and didn't reveal his chosen deity...he was perfectly safe.
ercatli actually did engage in some meaningful conversation and made a few points along the way but.... he just didn't want to answer any of our pertinent and significant questions. He felt the one question, "Believe in God?", should have been enough for us to carry forward. In this way, again, he could stay "safe".
Oh well... we win some and sadly...
we have to ignore some.