spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
We have naturalistic explanations for DNA. It's chemistry. And we have naturalistic explanations for the encoding sequence, evolution by natural selection.
On faith
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
That's all well and good. But you didn't address the question.
While it may have a naturalistic explanation, that does not mean it isn't good evidence for God's existence.
If it was evidence for God, how could you know that it was?
Jan.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
It means exactly that.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Notes on Futility
It's a matter of function. While a bunch of atheists run around complaining about this god or that, their failure to comprehend what they're dealing with renders their efforts pointless unless their whole purpose is simply godless imitation of what they pretend to despise.
How about getting a clue? You're so busy writing everyone else's motivations for them in order to avoid having any manner of substantial discussion there's really not anything to discuss with you.
Well, some people discuss matters of history and theology, anthropology, psychology, behavioral economics, art, ontology, dialectics, &c.
Some others would preach their gods and faiths more or less incomprehensibly.
Still others just want to bawl that there is no God and basically make a lot of clueless noise.
Look, if the purpose of the critique is just to ridicule what one hates they might as well skip it.
Pay attention↑.
No, seriously, that one's pretty straightforward.
Plenty if we're not so wretchedly selfish.
I mean, it's one thing to say Christians, for instance, have been breathing down my neck my whole life. I might even point to censorship campaigns during my youth. But, you know, to be honest I'm uncertain what part of the twenty-five year social revolution my side just won, in which our opponents were primarily Christian―a dispute pitting assertions of religion against the U.S. Constitution―you're trying to overlook. Or, maybe the constant harping against women. Think of it this way, an evangelical Christian conservative, in his zeal to oppose the White House, argued against a jobless aid bill because it was immoral to feed the hungry.
Meanwhile, we're supposed to be terrified of Muslims. And, apparently, if you go to a few places around the world where there are a lot of Muslims, there are some problems in the societies that are tied to assertions of religion.
And you should watch the faithful factions go at it in India. There's a Christian child army running amok in central Africa. How many terror groups and religious militias running in the east and north of the continent? How about western Africa, where two answers to HIV/AIDS are the superstitious belief that a man can cure himself of the virus by having sex with a virgin girl, and the government's answer to rape is to tell girls to stop being so without godly virtue.
And, you know, it's not just abstract politics. The Christian mother in Louisiana who killed her twelve year-old daughter because the girl lost her virginity? Or the Christian mother in Texas who killed her sons because God told her to? How about something a little less spectacular? How about the Christians who can't seem to help their adult daughter fight addiction because actually doing anything helpful is seen as too rewarding to someone who fails to satisfy them?
At some point, it pays to understand what's going on.
Even simply looking at history and understanding my society, yes, it helps to comprehend a few things about religion.
And that means having discussions that you are apparently incapable of engaging because you have refused these issues and aspects.
Your entire atheism is anti-identification, isn't it? You don't have an affirmative argument, do you? Why the hell would you let people you don't trust define religion for you? Oh, right, it's easier than going out and reading history and learning for yourself, isn't it? And it's a lot more fun to just ridicule religion and anything more complex than whatever it is you're capable of dealing with, right?
The problem is that it's neither respectful nor respectable.
But you can't get beyond this intellectually stunted excrement, and there doesn't really seem to be any mystery why. The critique from ignorance just seems an unreliable proposition.
And if you don't like that assessment, you can always prove it wrong.
I'm unclear as to why each of your responses is a rant. Why the anger? I don't even get the logic behind it.
I am aware of all those negative aspects to religion (of course). I'm not arguing otherwise. I'm the atheist after all. You, in my opinion, have chosen a strange approach. You are, rightly, offended by the misuse of religion in all the cases you've described but you are also just as offended by those who point out that there is no evidence for religion. Is it just that everything offends you equally?
Your approach to discussion is anger and name calling but it's indiscriminate as you appear to be angry at everything. I don't know where you live as you keep talking about my society and in my world but in my locale (Seattle) there is a football player that used to be referred to a "Angry Doug Baldwin". He has since matured and calmed down a bit but it seems he has passed the torch to you.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
No. 'I cannot see God therefore what is there to interact with?'
It never means he doesn't exist, it simply questions the relevance of whether it makes any difference.
One does not go around assuming things exist without having a reason to think so. That is irrational.
Do you think that, if you changed your attitude about unicorns, they would appear to you?
Does God exist as you read this sentence?
I have an attitude about unicorns?
Jan.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Of course you do.
You have a concept of unicorns (if not, every time I mentioned them, you'd say what??) yet (unless you know otherwise) they do not exist.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
If there is a perfectly natural explanation, we don't need God as an explanation. What do you think evidence means?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I don't know.
I see insufficient evidence. More to the point, I see no direct relevance to the world - though I see indirect relevance through other people's beliefs.
But the same could be said about black cats crossing their path.
If you change it, unicorns will appear to you. At least, by the logic you've presented.
Seattle said:
That's your own problem. Your apparent lack of pathos would appear to disrupt your reading comprehension, and there really isn't much I can do to help you with that.
And I'm sorry if you find that confusing, but what, really, do you expect your opinion to count for when you demonstrate yourself clueless? Seriously: With nothing affirmative about your argument all we know is what it isn't.
You're aware, but ... what then? You talk about strange approaches, yet you can't even answer for your own. If all you're doing is complaining for your own satisfaction, fine. In fact, that would be good to know; then people who prefer informed discussion will know to just leave you alone.
Because, seriously, going out of one's way to deepen divisions 'twixt people just seems a problematic response what one describes as "negative aspects".
People like you make communication between people intending good faith just a little more difficult. That's your contribution to the world.
And if we limit the range of acceptable possibilities, as you do, severely enough, such appearances become inevitable. You are unreliable.
In the meantime, you asked me particular questions, and I answered, and you're still changing the subject.
You're correct: What more is there to say? Whatever you want, neighbor, but none of it really matters. You might be "aware of all those negative aspects to religion", but your apparent purpose is simply the denigration of other human beings. For some of us, these questions go beyond questions of satisfying bigotry. Here's the thing: You're not actually helping anyone, and your refusal to engage questions of religion in any context of good faith actually augments and perpetuates the harm caused by religious behaviors.
That's the problem.
I can tell you the purpose of my critique. And I am very much suspicious of those, like you, who are afraid to discuss the purpose of their own.
If you disdain the negative aspects of irrational belief, then stop wallowing in them. If you disdain the negative aspects of religion but not other irrational beliefs, why?
Because that's a simple behavioral contradiction: Reject God for rational reasons (Check!); limit rational demand to question of existence of God (Huh?); proactively argue anti-identification while refusing rational consideration of anything (Now wait a ... er ... oh ... duh, of course).
Look: What do you actually think you are doing?
Or: What are you on about?
Aside from defending fallacy, I mean. As I suggested: Your argument is an anti-identification without an affirmative assertion, and it's easy enough to prove that assessment wrong.
I don't know whether unicorns exist or not. I doubt they exist on this planet, but I cannot say they don't exist on any of the innumerable planets, in any of the innumerable universes.
Jan.
lol
Don't ever lose your sense of wonder, Jan. There are some people who just don't look at the world with wonder, anymore.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Jan, you of all contributors have no business demanding straight answers.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Bit of a double-standard there:
'I don't know' is a perfectly acceptable response for you, but apparently not for others.
And yet, when this has been presented as a stance on the existence God, you find it unacceptable.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Are you trying to learn a new word a day? "Pathos" doesn't fit in that sentence.
You're arguing that anyone who isn't in agreement with your ranting is clueless. How is that working out for you as a tactic? I'm guessing not so well. What is there to "affirm" on a subject you don't consider to exist? What is your affirmative message regarding unicorns?
I don't think I'm the one who's deepening divisions 'twixt people here. That seems to be your contribution to the world.
Again, try picking up a dictionary. I know you are trying to call me a name but "unreliable" makes no sense in this context. Is English your first language? If not I'll be more lenient.
I'm not engaging in any "other" irrational behaviors. I'm also not limiting any discourse regarding questioning the existence of God. Discuss and question all you want . I don't have anything to clarify in my mind on this issue just as I don't have anything to clarify on that much disliked subject of unicorns. I'm not limiting any discussions by those who are looking for more clarity.
I think you are in the Jan school of thought in this matter. You assume that those who have no reason to believe in God actually do believe but just have some troubling questions to resolve. That's not the case with most atheists I would guess. It's hard to have questions for something that doesn't seem to exist in the first place.
Seattle said:
Unsupported assertion as change of subject.
Support that assertion.
Already on record:
• #455↑ ― to Seattle: "... matters of history and theology, anthropology, psychology, behavioral economics, art, ontology, dialectics, &c."
• #306↑ ― to Jan Ardena: "When you provide your analyses, you rely on a literary corpus or construction of perspective that pretty much nobody else has access to; nobody knows what you're on about."
• #209↑ ― to DaveC426913: "In order to establish your equivalence, you functionally dismiss the entire historical and literary records regarding how people treat either concept."
• #306↑ ― to Jan Ardena: "When you provide your analyses, you rely on a literary corpus or construction of perspective that pretty much nobody else has access to; nobody knows what you're on about."
• #209↑ ― to DaveC426913: "In order to establish your equivalence, you functionally dismiss the entire historical and literary records regarding how people treat either concept."
As I said before↑, pay attention.
Then again, I also noted these things mean having discussions that you are apparently incapable of engaging because you have refused these issues and aspects. And therein lies your problem: You're so caught up in your petulant identity politic you can't perceive anything else.
Like I said, you can't get beyond this intellectually stunted excrement, and there doesn't really seem to be any mystery why; the critique from ignorance just seems an unreliable proposition, if you don't like that assessment you can always prove it wrong.
You've offered yet another post in which you have nothing affirmative or useful to offer the thread.
Snuff your gaslight.
No, I am not. This is how it is.
Whatever be the type of discussion..civil or uncivil..could you understand theist point of view or could a theist understand your point of view ?
You expect objective evidence which a theist cannot provide. You do not wish to move beyond this position, there are spiritual awakenings, some kind of higher level, discussing them with you will be futile because you are not even able to cross the first barrier. The first thing which you will have to do is to unlearn your objectivity on this matter. Well you won't agree on this, so things cannot move.
Last edited: