Anti-Christian Bigotry?

[Guest American Woman]

...I will say that one of your main claims in this thread is true IMO. That being that a belief in God(s) or even being Christian does not make one an "idiot" or a "nutjob". Clearly there are a great many Christians who aren't idiots or nutjobs. So people shouldn't label an entire group of people as such based on one belief or one group of beliefs they have.

Clearly there are many intelligent Christians - just as there are ignorant as well as intelligent atheist and agnostics. So no, people shouldn't label all religious people as such - and it is bigotry to do so.

That said, without labeling the believers themselves, I still think it's perfectly legit for anyone to label certain beliefs, such as belief in God or following Christianity, as "idiotic" or "crazy", if that is what they believe and they can argue it logically.

Who's to decide if their argument is logical or not? Those who don't believe? What if someone could "logically" argue that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry and/or adopt children? Would it then be perfectly legit for them to label the movement for gay rights as "idiotic" or "crazy?"

The difference is the belief may be idiotic and crazy, but the people may not necessarily be. That said, there are certain Christians who do seem to be, IMO, idiots and loons, and I'm sure other Christians would agree.

There are also, IMO, certain atheists who do seem to be idiots and loons, and I'm sure other atheists would agree. And why in the world would it be any different? What group, nationality, organization, what-have-you doesn't have its share of idiots and loons?

[Guest American Woman]

Well said !!! I think many people have a faith of some kind which helps them get through life and if it does, good for them.

Exactly. Some believe there is a God, some believe that there is not. I don't understand those on either side who feel the need to cut everyone who doesn't believe as they do down, but those who do are all cut from the same cloth.

[guyser]

Who's to decide if their argument is logical or not?

The one being talked to and provided the evidence to.

What if someone could "logically" argue that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry and/or adopt children? Would it then be perfectly legit for them to label the movement for gay rights as "idiotic" or "crazy?"

Not at all.

No one could logically argue that. Some may try, but they would be illogical arguments devoid of any proof , and just as looney and stupid as the religious ones trying to logically explain spaghetti monsters or god or mohammed, or the number 42

Edited October 2, 2013 by Guyser2

[Mighty AC]

That's it really. Christians aren't being singled out, unsupported beliefs are. A belief in gods is equivalent to all other unsupported beliefs in terms of validity. Of course they are far more dangerous when considering their impact on society. Anyway, even if a person happens to be rational in all other respects they can still be criticized for belief without evidence.

If I state that Stephen Harper secretly works for Enbridge and didn't supply proof, I would be criticized. Even if I found others that shared my idea and we held weekly meetings, it would still be fine to criticize our unsupported Harper beliefs. Sure we may whine that you can't prove he doesn't secretly work for Enbridge and that believers see and feel evidence of his employment that non-believers cannot. We may also claim that we take comfort in knowing the truth about Harper, and that intolerance towards our belief is bigotry; but, we would be wrong.

Truth matters. Evidence matters. Not all ideas are equal and no idea should be exempt from examination and criticism.

Edited October 2, 2013 by Mighty AC

[carepov]

No one could logically argue that. Some may try, but they would be illogical arguments devoid of any proof , and just as looney and stupid as the religious ones trying to logically explain spaghetti monsters or god or mohammed, or the number 42

Well this guy tries - and he tries very hard:

http://www.godandscience.org/

Are his arguments logical?

Note: by posting this site I am not endorsing it

[guyser]

Well this guy tries - and he tries very hard:

http://www.godandscience.org/

Are his arguments logical?

Not in the least are his logical.

To start with , his very first link is enough to roll ones eyes and walk away.

Although there is no direct evidence for the cause of the universe, we now have a fair amount of knowledge about the early history of the universe and the laws that govern it, which provide us with indirect evidence that a super-intelligent Agent designed the universe.

Talk about mumbly jumbly BS .

Put it this way, he is the personification of someone who deserves mocking.

Chances are , it was a double secret super intelligent Agent who designed it. Hope theres a decoder ring involved.

Edited October 2, 2013 by Guyser2

[Guest American Woman]

Truth matters. Evidence matters. Not all ideas are equal and no idea should be exempt from examination and criticism.

Yes, evidence does matter, which is why god is not comparable to the tooth fairy, Santa, or the ever popular "spaghetti monster;" and again, your dismissing it doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist. And again. Science not being able to prove it doesn't prove your point.

As for ''truth," you don't know the "truth" of the matter. All you have is your opinion, your belief, same as everyone else.

Edited October 2, 2013 by American Woman

[carepov]

That's it really. Christians aren't being singled out, unsupported beliefs are. A belief in gods is equivalent to all other unsupported beliefs in terms of validity. Of course they are far more dangerous when considering their impact on society. Anyway, even if a person happens to be rational in all other respects they can still be criticized for belief without evidence.

If I state that Stephen Harper secretly works for Enbridge and didn't supply proof, I would be criticized. Even if I found others that shared my idea and we held weekly meetings, it would still be fine to criticize our unsupported Harper beliefs. Sure we may whine that you can't prove he doesn't secretly work for Enbridge and that believers see and feel evidence of his employment that non-believers cannot. We may also claim that we take comfort in knowing the truth about Harper, and that intolerance towards our belief is bigotry; but, we would be wrong.

Truth matters. Evidence matters. Not all ideas are equal and no idea should be exempt from examination and criticism.

There are however differences in "unsupported beliefs".

First of all, there are beliefs that are benign and those that are harmful.

Then there are degrees of plausibility. Saying that "I believe that some force beyond humanity's ability to comprehend created the universe" is not equivalent to the "tooth fairy" or "the great gummy bear".

And worse than unsupported beliefs are refuted beliefs, some whoppers include:

-Today's GM foods are worse for you than non-GM food

-Vaccines cause autism

-Growing corn to produce fuel is good for the environment

-Free trade causes poverty and harms the environment

-Republicans/Conservatives have better records in controlling deficits

-Mandatory minimums and harsher sentences = "safer communities"

-Teaching religious beliefs to children is a form of child abuse

You seem to be making a big deal out of unsupported yet plausible and benign beliefs.

[Mighty AC]

Yes, evidence does matter, which is why god is not comparable to the tooth fairy, Santa, or the ever popular "spaghetti monster;" and again, your dismissing it doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist. And again. Science not being able to prove it doesn't prove your point.

As for ''truth," you don't know the "truth" of the matter. All you have is your opinion, your belief, same as everyone else.

And that's the danger of anti-intellectualism and belief without evidence. If there are no standards for evidence then rational, testable ideas are considered equivalent to opinions.

"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Asimov

Explain how a belief in gods is not equivalent to the Spaghetti Monster or a Stephen Harper Enbridge conspiracy theory. What evidence makes your unproven claim more reasonable than the others?

[Mighty AC]

Then there are degrees of plausibility. Saying that "I believe that some force beyond humanity's ability to comprehend created the universe" is not equivalent to the "tooth fairy" or "the great gummy bear".

Explain the difference. What evidence or reasoning makes one idea superior to the other?

[carepov]

Not in the least are his logical.

To start with , his very first link is enough to roll ones eyes and walk away.

Although there is no direct evidence for the cause of the universe, we now have a fair amount of knowledge about the early history of the universe and the laws that govern it, which provide us with indirect evidence that a super-intelligent Agent designed the universe.

Talk about mumbly jumbly BS .

Put it this way, he is the personification of someone who deserves mocking.

Chances are , it was a double secret super intelligent Agent who designed it. Hope theres a decoder ring involved.

I must agree with you there. Stil I admire his effort and they guy seems to have a lot of knowledge.

How about this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

He seems logical, no?

[carepov]

Then there are degrees of plausibility. Saying that "I believe that some force beyond humanity's ability to comprehend created the universe" is not equivalent to the "tooth fairy" or "the great gummy bear".

Explain the difference. What evidence or reasoning makes one idea superior to the other?

More specific claims/beleifs are less plausible.

[Guest American Woman]

And that's the danger of anti-intellectualism and belief without evidence. If there are no standards for evidence then rational, testable ideas are considered equivalent to opinions.

"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Asimov

Explain how a belief in gods is not equivalent to the Spaghetti Monster or a Stephen Harper Enbridge conspiracy theory. What evidence makes your unproven claim more reasonable than the others?

The fact that you have to ask how a belief in god is not equivalent to the Spaghetti Monster or a Stephen Harper Enbridge conspiracy theory shows a real lack of knowledge on your part.

Again. It's simply your claim that there is "no evidence." You dismiss it, therefore it doesn't exist - and you think that's evidence of critical thinking? AS for this - What evidence makes your unproven claim more reasonable than the others? - I have to wonder if you've even read what I've said or if you are just so caught up in your own Truth that you don't even listen to what anyone else has to say. Where have I ever claimed anything, much less that said claim is more reasonable than the others?? I have quite clearly stated that no one knows The Truth. And that is a fact.

[carepov]

And that's the danger of anti-intellectualism and belief without evidence. If there are no standards for evidence then rational, testable ideas are considered equivalent to opinions.

"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Asimov

Explain how a belief in gods is not equivalent to the Spaghetti Monster or a Stephen Harper Enbridge conspiracy theory. What evidence makes your unproven claim more reasonable than the others?

Mighty AC,

I looked up Asimov, and I think that you should pay attention to some of the things he says:

"I believe there's enough evidence for us to think that a big bang took place. But there is no evidence whatsoever to suppose that a superhuman being said, "Let it be." However, neither is there any evidence against it; so, if a person feels comfortable believing that, I am willing to have him believe it... as an article of faith. I have articles of faith, too. I have an article of faith that says the universe makes sense. Now there's no way you can prove that the universe makes sense, but there's just no fun in living in the universe if it doesn't make sense... my belief is that no matter how far we go we will always find that the universe makes sense. We will never get to the point where it suddenly stops making sense. But that is just an assumption on my part... I don't feel that people who believe in God will automatically be noble, but neither do I think they will automatically be wicked. I don't think those who don't believe in God will be automatically noble or automatically wicked either. I think this is a choice for every human being..."

"Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."

http://www.adherents.com/people/pa/Isaac_Asimov.html

[Mighty AC]

The fact that you have to ask how a belief in god is not equivalent to the Spaghetti Monster or a Stephen Harper Enbridge conspiracy theory shows a real lack of knowledge on your part.

Again. It's simply your claim that there is "no evidence." You dismiss it, therefore it doesn't exist - and you think that's evidence of critical thinking?

Ok great so what is this evidence that I am either ignorant of or willfully ignoring?

AS for this - What evidence makes your unproven claim more reasonable than the others? - I have to wonder if you've even read what I've said or if you are just so caught up in your own Truth that you don't even listen to what anyone else has to say. Where have I ever claimed anything, much less that said claim is more reasonable than the others??

Well you did write this today:

Yes, evidence does matter, which is why god is not comparable to the tooth fairy, Santa, or the ever popular "spaghetti monster;"

[Mighty AC]

More specific claims/beleifs are less plausible.

I don't understand what you mean by this. The claim that human bodies have 10 times more bacterial cells than human cells is specific and true.

The two claims are a Gummy Bear created the universe or God created the universe? Why is one more plausible than the other?

[guyser]

The two claims are a Gummy Bear created the universe or God created the universe? Why is one more plausible than the other?

We know when gummy bears came into existence. Probably shortly soon after man walked w dinosaurs.

Not to mention, one is tasty, the other not so much.

[carepov]

I don't understand what you mean by this. The claim that human bodies have 10 times more bacterial cells than human cells is specific and true.

The two claims are a Gummy Bear created the universe or God created the universe? Why is one more plausible than the other?

When there are two claims where neither is supported by scientific evidence and neither is refuted by evidence, the less specific the claim, the more plausible the beleif.

[Mighty AC]

We know when gummy bears came into existence. Probably shortly soon after man walked w dinosaurs.

Not to mention, one is tasty, the other not so much.

Right, that is called Occam's Palate argument I believe. "The tasty solution is always preferable to the less palatable".

When there are two claims where neither is supported by scientific evidence and neither is refuted by evidence, the less specific the claim, the more plausible the beleif.

You said: "Then there are degrees of plausibility. Saying that "I believe that some force beyond humanity's ability to comprehend created the universe" is not equivalent to the "tooth fairy" or "the great gummy bear". By your reasoning "some force" is more plausible than the Gummy Bear because you didn't name it. Yet, in this thread we've been talking about the Christian god. We know a lot about God. He's a dude, he's fond of killing people, he takes Sundays off, etc. So you believe the Christian god is less plausible than the Gummy Bear then?

[cybercoma]

Who's to decide if their argument is logical or not?

Are you aware that logic is like math? What you're asking here is the same as asking, "who's to decide if 2+2=5?"

[Guest American Woman]

Are you aware that logic is like math? What you're asking here is the same as asking, "who's to decide if 2+2=5?"

No, logic is not like math. There is no formula for what is or isn't logical, much less a definitive formula. What one person might perceive a logical, another person may not. In this case, regarding whether there is or isn't a god, logic is dependent on one's point of view. If it were like math, it would follow that if one were arguing logically that there was no god it would be a sure thing that there was no god. There would be no other answer. And there is no definitive answer. So either it is impossible to argue logically that there is no god because no one has the answer - or what is logical is debatable. Take your pick.

[TimG]

Are you aware that logic is like math? What you're asking here is the same as asking, "who's to decide if 2+2=5?"

Logic builds on assumptions. People starting with different assumptions can come to different logical conclusions. i.e. 2+2 only equals 4 if one assumes base 10 math. Assume base 3 math and 2+2=10 Edited October 3, 2013 by TimG

[cybercoma]

No, logic is not like math. There is no formula for what is or isn't logical

I'm sorry, but you have absolutely no idea what logic is then.

Feel free to start here if you're actually interested in learning something today. http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/logic/whatislogic.php

Edited October 3, 2013 by cybercoma

[Guest American Woman]

I'm sorry, but you have absolutely no idea what logic is then.

Feel free to start here if you're actually interested in learning something today. http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/logic/whatislogic.php

What I said is true. If logic were absolute, then one cannot use logic to argue that there is no god - as there is no absolute answer to that question.

Logic is not absolute.

Edited October 3, 2013 by American Woman

[Mighty AC]

Logic builds on assumptions. People starting with different assumptions can come to different logical conclusions. i.e. 2+2 only equals 4 if one assumes base 10 math. Assume base 3 math and 2+2=10

True, but the logic is still constant, provided the variables are defined. Now trying to get people that deal in relativistic mysticism to nail down their variables is damn near impossible.