Funny, but I have never made the argument that I have scientific evidence to support my non-belief. Where did that come from? What evidence would I even offer up? I'll assume that you're referring to someone else. It's actually ironic that you mention this as it is usually theists who are trying to use scientific evidence to prove the existence, not the other way around.

With all due respect (and I do mean that), I think you get involved in these threads because you are confident of your position and you enjoy "proving you're right" as much as the rest of us do by debating your position with those that disagree. It's simply human nature. I think you guys (the theists) have more of emotional stake in the subject matter, though.

I will agree to a point. Yes, attacking someone as a person for their belief is wrong and absurd, and is equivalent to stealing their wallet...you are showing zero recognition of them as a fellow human being. I feel the same way about people who attack a Jew or Muslim for their personal beliefs.

The problem is, Trekkor plays the same way back...he is just as guilty of attacking others beliefs as they are of attacking his. Therefore, he lost my respect. You don't do that, so you're still on my "list of OK God-guys :p "

If you think I post on these threads because I am trying to "prove I'm right" then you don't read my posts. I have said countless times that arguing God's existence is pointless because there can be no proof on either side.

Do you actually read my posts or do you just post based on what you think I should have written?

Secondly, even on this thread you (at least I think it's you...I'm too tired to search back) have used the "Well, there is a 99.9% chance that I'm right because there is no evidence of God's existence" argument. If that wasn't you and it was stuart then I apologize. The two of you post so often on these threads you tend to blur together.

Well thanks, I think. :p

I still don't have an answer to my question though. I can understand why Trekkor gets so into these debates. He has a central and strong belief in God and he feels strongly he is "right". I tend to get sucked into these debates for two reasons. First, I do believe in God and it does tend to irk me when I see believers being belittled by others for their beliefs. Second, I have had a reasonable amount of scientific training and I understand the limitations of science and what you can and cannot reasonably say based on available evidence. The "scientific" arguments posed on these threads would never stand the scrutiny of academia or even a high school debate. That tends to pull me in as well.

Again, though, what is the motivation of those who admittedly have no belief, will never have any belief and equate belief in the Christian God with belief in teapots or spaghetti monsters? I would be curious to see if stuart and IROC just surf various religious sites all day, picking fights. Do they visit sites about aliens or bigfoot or Nessie? Do they pick fights there too? Why? What's in it for them?

I can understand someone getting into a theological discussion now and then, we all do it. I'm asking about these few people that not only dominate the God related threads, but seem to have a desire to turn any thread into a God discussion.

I for one always endeavour to attack the belief set, not the person. I confess I have lapsed in the past, mostly in an effort to get through to a JW. I see little effort made on the other side. Its SOP to play the man. Look at this thread.

However. As with the piece of JW literatutre posted earlier showing a lady cuddling tiger- I feel no compulsion to show this sort of stupidty any degree of respect at all.

Like how some people make every discussion a race one, or a political one, or a Porsche one?

Many many many MANY people walking this planet right now are so simple, that their life actually does revolve around one or two thoughts, just chasing each other around a big empty skull. They eat breath and think simple things. When that happens, everything you see is tinted by that simple idea, and everything around you is inculcated with it. When someone else mentions anything that is not that simple thing (you know, like the millions of things that us normal people mention in day to day conversation), the simple person freaks and has to bring it back to simple thoughts.



Now hows THAT for quietly and calmly calling people f'ing braindead idiots! :D

Disconnect. I was not saying your agenda, simply the agenda of the dude who put forth the tea pot thing.

Again you are missing my point. I will try again.

Correct me if I am wrong but your entire premise is that if something has a very small possibility then a rational person should dismiss it. My question was trying to determine if you are willing to admit that somethings that have an extremely small probability of occurrence are worth "believing" in.

What probability do you assign to the theory that man (and all life) evolved from single cells? We have roughly the same amount of proof for this and IMO the odds are about the same. The difference is that now you (I think) are willing to be on the short end of the possibility.

Well as I recall, and I startred the thread, it was to dicuss the nature of atheism in a broader context of rationalism. Stated a number of times I didnt want to turn it into Son of ITAG thread. No intent to discuss gods, or anyones religion.

There is a good community of well informed and articulate rationalists here. Between you and Jeff, youve pretty much managed to derail the discussion.

The possibility that I will have a threesome with my girl and Angelina Jolie is exceedingly small...but I still have faith and believe!!! :D

Without that faith...I'd be a lost puppy in this world.

Very high indeed. Here we are.

Ok, I can accept that. Here's the part I don't get though. For someone who by their own admission has no "dog in the hunt" what is the motivation? Race could be said to have an effect on everyday life, so could politics. Porsches are just cool so we'll throw that one out.

Here's the core of the question though, and I am again limiting this question to discussions of God only. If we were discussing organized religion then I get it, either they have been slighted by religion in the past or believe that religion is a destructive force. I can understand that.

What I don't understand is this endless debate over whether God exists. If you remove that discussion from any discussion of organized religion, why should it matter one iota whether God exists to an athiest or agnostic? They have already stated they don't believe in God and find belief in God to be a simplistic and stupid "crutch" for the intellectually inferior. If they have risen above such silly superstitions, why even bother yourself with endlessly arguing with the intellectually unwashed of the world? Seriously, don't they have something better to do?

That pretty well captures how a lot of us feel, Mike. I'm genuinely interested in all points of view, when presented in a respectful manner. The moderates on both sides can do that, and we can have enlightening conversations that we all enjoy. Too bad that all goes out the window when the zealots (on either side) chime in.

One of the issues I see with this is that the folks carrying on the civil conversation tend to point out (and respond to) the lack of civility on the "other side", while doing nothing about it on their own. I'm as guilt as the next guy. While I characterize myself as a "fence sitter", it's no secret which way I lean. I believe there is a god. So maybe I only have one leg on the fence, or maybe more like I'm only leaning against it, with both feet on one side.

Anyway, it's also no secret that I find our little Dawkins fart catcher somewhat less than endearing. It's clear to me (and many others, apparently) that his discourse is meant to inflame more than enlighten. He is crass and belittling, looking for a reaction more than a response. "My side" calls him on it, and some of us (like me) even fire back. Yet the "other side" gives him a free pass.

The guy on my side, while equally dismissive of the views held by the other side, is not in the least bit crass and belittling about it. Yet the affect on the conversation is the same; it becomes completely derailed. Neither myself, nor anyone else on "my side" calls him on it, however. We tolerate it because he is on "our side", even if he is quite far off to the side...

So what do we do about this? It is difficult to carry on a reasoned, adult exchange in this environment. The zealots, with their substantial emotional investments in their positions, seem to drown everyone else out. They bring out the worst in both sides. It's frustrating. I do enjoy tossing our ideas back and forth. Just not when the kids keep interrupting.

You're right Stuart...every thread you post on somehow turns to this exact same discussion...but it's always the other guy's fault.. :rolleyes:

Here is a snip from your fourth post on this thread. I'm proud of you that you could contain yourself for three posts before delving into religion bashing. Seriously, these types of statements are exactly what derail a thread. If you want to simply discuss atheism and rationalism as you claim, then whether religion is a superstition has no bearing on that discussion. You invite these threads...

That is your rational assignment of probability. Because we are here, you assign the cause of our existence to the theory you like best? :confused:

Can you please answer this for me. Do you have anything with an extremely small probability of occurrence worth "believing" in?

I think that the issue here is that the "pure" theists is rare, or non-existent. They are all colored slightly (or more) by an associated religion. Almost by definition, religion says that you must bring others into the fold (or, at least, give them the experience of it so as to not be ignorant).

So, the theist MUST to some extent say to the atheist "if you don't believe, you will not live forever/enjoy nirvana/enjoy 72 virgins/whatever". Well...if there's one thing that humans hate, is being told that they are wrong...and the next thing they hate is being told that they've lost a contest. So, in the mind of the atheist, the theists just said "hey, not only are you wrong, but dude...you just lost the biggest lottery jackpot in the history of the world by being wrong".

That kinda stings. Whether it was the intention or not (sometimes it is, sometimes it's not), that's how it appears to the atheist.

Why does it sting? If a Hindu came up to me and told me I would not reach the afterlife unless I followed Maya, my response would probably be something like "Mmmmkay" and I would move on. See, I don't believe in Maya so whatever results come from that non-belief don't matter one whit to me.

If you don't believe in God and are supremely confident in that belief then why should any consequence of that non-belief matter at all?

The only answer I can come up with is that these folks either a) were slighted somehow in life and they attribute that to God, therefore they feel a need to battle other peoples belief in God at every turn or b) they simply enjoy arguing and revel in attempting to show others how stupid they are.

I seriously hope it's a)....

Not because you feel that you've actually lost a prize, but that someone told you that you were wrong. No one deals with that well...especially the people who come to forums and post things. We're all egoists in here...you have to be, to be convinced that someone really gives a flying rat's butt about what you have to say. So, we come here to stroke our egos, and are assailed by people (all egoists themselves) from all over, people that you might never speak to in real life, and that hurts our egos. See...egoists know how to cut better than anyone, because they have been cut so many times themselves ;)


Are we loosing track of this thread now, or is it just me? ;)

This thread was off track from the fourth post...don't feel bad :p

And with that, I'm going to mow the grass. Feel free to continue discussing how rational you all are!!

What was the usefulness of Atheism, that has been outlived?

Rick, do you want my kid's kids' kids to have to pray in school, or acknowledge the christian god in a pledge to our country in school, either as directed by the school or through peer pressure?

When I testify in court, do I need to invoke the christian god in swearing to tell the truth?

When I live in a community, should I be welcome or not based on whether or not I go to the church that most in the community goes to?

When our leaders want us to invade a country, should the christian god be telling them it's the thing to do?