grindy

Duh. All ideologies are bad.

__________________
A smell of petroleum prevails throughout.

DwnWthVwls

Yes, that's probably a more articulate way of putting it, but Grindy also has a point (not sure if he was being sarcastic or not).

The thing about your celestial teapot statement is that the metaphysical beliefs of religions do have a bearing on earthly reality. Denial of reality or the understanding of it is a problem. People also use their metaphysical beliefs to assess and criticize earthly reality. I'm not sure I understand where you're are coming from. It seems contradictory.

__________________
I don't got a god complex, you got a simple god...

grindy

I wasn't.

__________________
A smell of petroleum prevails throughout.

grindy

Damn. You sure showed me. Mind blown.

__________________
A smell of petroleum prevails throughout.

Neapolitan

Jftr I didn't say I was the only theist on MB. I said 'non anti-theist,' that still leaves the door open to being a agnostic and a soft atheist. You can split hairs with every category. Technically by some definitions theist do not believe in or have to believe in the Trinity. But for particle purposes lets acknowledge that most people consider Unitarians and Trinitarian as theist. I really don't know who on MB are religious, a soft atheist etc. the poll has votes by members who are long gone by now. The reason I said it because I feel like I am the only non anti-theist here, I understand that might not be so.

__________________

DwnWthVwls

I'm not an anti-theist. An anti-theist claims there is no god, I claim there is no reason to accept theistic claims of god as true aka an atheist (also a non anti-theist). I assume this is what you're referring to as a soft atheist.

Here is a good explanation if you want to better understand my position. If you're not as dense as the caller the first 6 or so minutes is all you really need to watch:

__________________
I don't got a god complex, you got a simple god...

Neapolitan

I don't get this need for the first thing an athiest wants to do is insult theists, people like Hamid. Now I have not aassumed any one on either side of the debate is dense, and I don't why you have to immediately say the caller Hamid is dense. The caller has his opinions, the host has opinions. The host acts like a preacher man cause he has an Amen choir, his sidekick. Athiest don't believe in God but they sure borrow heavily from church and religion. The only thing I fault Hamid for not knowing is that this is like a shell game, or guess a number. If they asked Hamid to guess a number they would be yelling "no, no, no" pretty the same way. They say "give me something to believe in" something like that, well it's obvious that they already made up their mind.

The host believe is all kind of stuff he can not prove, like the food he eats that isn't going to make him sick. He doesn't bring his take out to a lab to see if there is any thing in it that makes him sick. He just eats it, blinding believing the his take out isn't his last meal.

__________________

DwnWthVwls

Its just how logic works. Religion aside, did you understand the courtroom analogy or are you saying its wrong? I called Hamid dense because he understands the counter argument but purposefully denies it when he has no way to fit his religious assertion into the same logical process he would use else where.

As for your comments about believing other things without proof such as the safety of take out. There is a ton of evidence to suggest it is safe and eating something is not the same as asserting something. I can post another video that further addresses this with a theist caller I don't consider dense, no amen choir, and less verbal aggression if you think it will help.

I could be wrong. That was always my understanding of the difference between anti theist and atheist. Never looked up the definition, just relied on its vernacular usage in the atheist discussions ive heard.

__________________
I don't got a god complex, you got a simple god...

Neapolitan

I really, really tried to understand it, but I don't. I mean it is riddle with things ... I can't even ... why? It should be called the "Swiss cheese theory of court procedures" cause it's just filled with holes. Why would someone who believes in God, want to prosecute God? "I accept the proposition of your existence but you are guilty and you're going to jail for a very long time?" Doesn't make sense. Why are the theist the prosecutors? Why?

And how can you find Supreme Being "guilty of not existing?" That sounds like the Supreme Being should exist, he should go to jail, and maybe after some lengthy time in jail, God will be rehabilitated into existence, you know so won't commit the crime of not existing anymore.

He is not sure if God is completely innocent of existing, but he is the defense right? Doesn't he have Attorney–client privileges? Can't he ask God if he is completely innocent?

But then at one point he talks about a "vote" well voting is for the jury, but he claims to be the defense, so is he part of the jury or part of defense? If he is both, then the jury is tainted and the case will be dismissed. No one defense team can communicate with the jury panel during the time of the trial, let alone have someone multitask as part of defense and the jury panel.

And it seems all kinda backwards, (theist) those defending God irl are the prosecutors, and those who don't defend God irl (atheist) are part of the defense. I don't know why they think this is such a great argument.

And I don't think that they understand how the American court system is set up. It is not a 100% accurate system, but at least it's the best available system that could be thought up during the formation of the United States. A person can in all reality be guilty, but without sufficient evidence is "found" innocent. And a person "found" guilty but is innocent can with the likelihood of new evidence can have his sentence overturned.

Well he says that he believes in a lot of things and then he says he doesn't have to believe in anything without proof. Well I was just saying a person who has carry out eats the food believing with absolute proof that the food is safe. People go through life believing without proof. Maybe some of those things he believes are believed by him without proof, that's all.


What I meant by "anti theist" is the person who not only opposes the proposition: 'God exists,' in the realm of philosophical ideas and arguments, but the person who actively, whether verbally or physically, attacks a person who accepts the proposition God exists.' The kind of person you find on the internet going on a tirade about how stupid people of faith or theist are stupid, dumb etc. etc. or calling for the annihilation of people of faith or people who believe in God. I could be wrong. That was always my understanding of the difference between anti theist and atheist.

__________________

DwnWthVwls

It's really hard to have this conversation via text because it requires a lot of stop and starting for clarification. I don't mind going through it all with you, but I'm not gonna post a big wall of text trying to acknowledge and offer counters to everything you just said.

So let's start here:

-Do you understand that the court case analogy is not actually putting God on trial?

It is used to demonstrate logic, explain who has the burden of proof, and establish the difference between: innocent, guilty, and not guilty.. It may not be intuitive to you but these are 3 separate things.

-Do you understand or accept there are 2 positions to take: God exists and God does not exist?

Both of these claims have burden of proof. However, myself and other atheists who think like me do not make either of these claims. In fact I'd argue against both positions. I'm rejecting them based on the fact that there is no evidence, and until there IS, logically you should not accept them. My position is that until you do have demonstrable evidence it is illogical to believe you and therefore I do not. This is not that same as denying the possibility of a god.

What makes believing in your god reasonable without evidence, but believing in the Easter Bunny, Cthulu, or any thing else not reasonable? Can you explain to me how one is more logical than the other when the evidence for both is equally lacking?



Let's start here and establish a foundation to better understand where each other are coming from before moving forward. I'm gonna post another video in an attempt to save me a lot of typing.. it's pretty much the same thing but with a different caller and different words, if you have the time or energy I hope you watch it.



I would never call anyone who has faith stupid or physically/verbally attack them, but by definition they are not being logical when they make a god claim. I'm saying they are not being logical about this one question, not as a whole. I do believe religion is a hindrance to human progression and I hope it is gone in the future, which I guess by your definition makes me an anti-theist. There is a difference between criticizing and attacking an ideology.

__________________
I don't got a god complex, you got a simple god...