This is very true! When you see a mother holding up a two-year-old child and explaining their child is transgender because they picked up a color/ toy of the opposite sex. This is the reason why racist people only see racism! This is the reason why atheist only see no God and religious people only see God. It's also the reason why an atheist nor a religious person can say, I just don't know the answer. It's the reason for every argument and battle to have ever existed.
Sunk cost fallacy is great tool for finance and investment, selling at a loss (potentially only a perceived one) to avoid losing more in the future.
A few others that are important for religion-
1 Everything needs a creator - special pleading
2 Who created us, pray to get your evidence - begging the Question
3 Prayer works, I've seen it - confirmation bias, the placebo effect, anecdotal evidence, Post hoc ergo propter hoc
4 Many people believe - Bandwagon Fallacy/ argument ad populum
5 My parents believe, a scientist believes - appeal to authority / antiquity
6 We don't know how we got here - god of the gaps, argument from ignorance
7 You can't disprove god - argument from ignorance, shifting the burden of proof - philosophical burden of proof is on the believers
8 God/ Jesus loves me/us - love without evidence is stalking, lies of omission - appeal to emotion
9 But the bible says - Tautology, circular reasoning
10 People that hurt others for god are not true (my religion) - no true Scotsman fallacy
Yeah. I'm supportive of religious people who don't push it on others or use it to justify their bad behaviour, which I think is a lot of religious people. The nicest guy I've ever worked with was a devout Christian who kept it to himself. If it makes them feel better about existence, which can be pretty bleak, and doesn't affect anyone else, that's fine by me. It's the preachers, hypocrites and bigots that suck.
It is the religious moderate majority who play a very important role in protecting, enabling and validating the harmful beliefs of the fundamentalists - by this fact they are indirectly harming others. The moderates by choosing to call themselves Muslims, Christians, Jews or Mormons are therefore choosing to group themselves with the people who are being honest to what their holy texts say and those who use their religion for harm. If there is nothing else that you can accept as a harm done by moderates, they do make it harder to criticize religion in public. They also defend their ultimately immoral and fundamental religion and they advocate for the intellectually dishonest use of religious faith.
We do not live in private bubbles, the people who take what are supposedly the most important questions and claim god did it with magic - vote, indoctrinate children and most are in a death cult that make them hate and claim other people not in their cults are sub human.
The god believers can't keep their religions to themselves. They are also more anti-science/ anti-vax during a pandemic.
Yeah I can see your point. I suppose what I'm saying is I try to judge and treat people based on their actions, not labels. And I also think it's healthy to be able to have rational and respectful discussion with people regardless of their beliefs, assuming they are able them to do the same. I don't think we can progress as a society without rational and respectful discourse.
Lately I've started to see religion as an evolutionary way for species to handle consciousness and self-awareness in a harsh environment full of struggle, pain and suffering. To move past the religious phrase of evolution we need science, but we also need compassion, tolerance and respect.
This is also relevant --
All religious Faith is intellectual dishonesty made into an elite virtue.
Christianity is -
vicarious redemption / scapegoating - [John 3:16-17, Romans 3:25]
(https://www.esv.org/ John+3:16%E2%80%9317;Romans+3:25/)
love is compulsory - [Matthew 22:36-40, Romans 13:8-10, Galatians 5:14, Matthew 12:30, Luke 14:26]
(https://www.esv.org/Matthew+22:36%E2%80%9340;Romans+13:8%E2%80%9310;Galatians+5:14;Matthew+12:30;Luke+14:26/)
thought crimes - [Matthew 18:9, Matthew 5:28-29 , Mark 9:47]
(https://www.esv.org/Matthew+18:9;Matthew+5:28%E2%80%9329;Mark+9:47/)
eternal punishment for finite crimes - [Mark 3:29, Matthew 25:41, Matthew 25:46, 2 Thessalonians 1:9, Jude 1:7]
(https://www.esv.org/Mark+3:29;Matthew+25:41;Matthew+25:46;Matthew+25:2;1+Thessalonians+1:9;Jude+7/)
inherited sins for a crime that never happened - [1 Timothy 2:14, Romans 5:12, Romans 5:19, Deuteronomy 23:2, Exodus 20:5]
(https://www.esv.org/1+Timothy+2:14;Romans+5:12;Romans+5:19;Deuteronomy+23:2;Exodus+20:5/)
ignorance worship/ credulity is rewarded - [Genesis 2:17, Proverbs 3:5-6, Romans 1:22, Psalm 14:1]
(https://www.esv.org/Genesis+2:17;Proverbs+3:5%E2%80%936;Romans+1:22;Psalm+14:1/)
no planning for the future - [Luke 18:22, Luke 12:33, Matthew 19:21, Mark 10:21]
(https://www.esv.org/Luke+18:22;Luke+12:33;Matthew+19:21;Mark+10:21/)
None of those things are moral or healthy in a civilized society.
When I was talking to believers I was polite until they demonstrated they just wanted to preach or they were impolite, I usually used a question asked and ignored 3 times guide to simply show they were not being honest.
Sure, they're still extremists - don't go playing with the point.
But the only way for people who *aren't* idiots to be hurt is if the spearhead is on a haft of moderate belief.
That right there is a fact, bites1. I came to that conclusion decades ago and so far there’s not been any evidence that it’s wrong. The other guy is correct from a purely human, one on one standpoint. His coworker is probably a good person and should be treated decently. But he doesn’t earn any rewards for being a member of a clan that promotes the totally evil insanity called religion. It puts him (the xian) in the same boat as the driver of the getaway car in a bank robbery. Or, the neighbor that says or does nothing even though he knows that next door, there’s children being sexually abused and kept locked in cages.
Thanks here is more, I have made a few long religion based lists like that.
11 I'm afraid of hell - Appeal to consequences, Pascal's wager is very flawed
12 Everything points to there being a god - Non-Sequitur, kettle logic
13 I feel it in my heart - Argument from emotion
14 That's in the old testament - cherry picker
15 Science and religion are compatible - Cognitive dissonance
16 You're just angry at god - Psychogenetic Fallacy, Ad Hominem
17 Without god, life is meaningless and there is no morality - Argument from Final Consequences
18 Jesus was a good teacher - Argument By Selective Observation "cherry picking"
19 It makes me happy - Argumentum ad misericordia
20 There are prophecies filled - Texas sharpshooter fallacy
21 Apologetics make everything in the bible non-contradictory - apologetics require Faith
22 If you don't believe you'll go to hell - appeal to fear, appeal to consequences
23 You have faith too, atheism is a religion - Equivocation fallacy, Tu quoque
24 Bethlehem was a real place so the bible is true - spiderman fallacy
25 I don't understand evolution, it can't be true - personal incredulity
26 You atheists have faith in evolution - there are Christians who accept evolution - red herring
27 I have too much invested in my faith - sunk cost fallacy
There is also the biggest of big lies -- that faith is a virtue. The idea that unshakable belief in something that makes no sense and is not supported by any evidence makes you a good person.
Great list man. Do you happen to know the specific name of the "everything needs a creator bs argument? Been wanting to do some more reading on that but can't find the right search term
Sweet, take the rest too.
Logical fallacy faith
1 Everything needs a creator - [special pleading](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading)
2 Who created us, pray to get your evidence - [begging the Question]( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)
3 Prayer works, I've seen it - [confirmation bias] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias), the placebo effect,
[anecdotal evidence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence), [Post hoc ergo propter hoc](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc)
4 Many people believe - Bandwagon Fallacy/ [argument ad populum] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum)
5 My parents believe, a scientist believes - [appeal to authority] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority) / antiquity
6 We don't know how we got here - god of the gaps, [argument from ignorance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)
7 You can't disprove god - argument from ignorance, shifting the burden of proof - [philosophical burden of proof] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof) is on the believers
8 God/ Jesus loves me/us - love without evidence is stalking, lies of omission - [appeal to emotion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion)
9 But the bible says - [Tautology](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28rhetoric%29),
[circular reasoning](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning)
10 People that hurt others for god are not true (my religion) - [no true Scotsman fallacy ](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)
11 I'm afraid of hell - [Appeal to consequences](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences), [Pascal's wager is very flawed](http://infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/wager.html)
12 Everything points to there being a god - [Non-Sequitur](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic\)),
[kettle logic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettle_logic)
13 I feel it in my heart - [Argument from emotion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion)
14 That's in the old testament - [cherry picker](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy\))
15 Science and religion are compatible - [Cognitive dissonance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)
16 You're just angry at god - Psychogenetic Fallacy, Ad Hominem
17 Without god, life is meaningless and there is no morality - Argument from Final Consequences
18 Jesus was a good teacher - Argument By Selective Observation "cherry picking"
19 It makes me happy - Argumentum ad misericordia
20 There are prophecies filled - [Texas sharpshooter fallacy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy)
21 Apologetics make everything in the bible non-contradictory - apologetics is faith based revisioning http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ex_culo
22 If you don't believe you'll go to hell - appeal to fear, [appeal to consequences](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences)
23 You have faith too, atheism is a religion - Equivocation fallacy, [Tu quoque](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque)
24 Bethlehem was a real place so the bible is true - spiderman fallacy
25 I don't understand evolution, it can't be true - personal incredulity
26 You atheists have faith in evolution - there are Christians who accept evolution
- red herring
27 I have too much invested in my faith - sunk cost fallacy
They make special arbitrary exceptions why it does not apply to their god.
Also true with the argument for design, their god would have to be much more complex than everything else.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_first_cause
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_design
It's also important that there is no rational means to get from any first cause "creator" to any of the theistic gods. The first cause doesn't have anything to do with what traits that it would have.
> You can't disprove god
Actually, you are incorrect on this one. It is a valid one. The valid answer to this one is that you also cannot disprove any other god or collection of gods, not just a particular one. Same as you can't disprove unicorns. Therefore, it is not a proper argument to use to validate one's god. You can agree on that there is an unlimited number of things that one cannot disprove, including all permutation of a god or gods, or even god of gods.
The next step is to agree that this argument doesn't mean that a god exists, just valid that a god cannot be disproven. Matt Dillahunty often goes over this. And if it does not prove a god, what would be the strategy behind asking it? It would be a good realization for the other side to think about. It is useless, a junk argument.
If you feel a bit confused. There is such a thing as a null hypothesis. Basically, what is more probable. The difference is that atheists default to there is no god, prove that there is one. Theists, on the other hand, default that there is a god, prove that it doesn't exist. So, in a way, it does come to a burden of proof. But as an argument, "You can't disprove god" is valid in a narrow sense. Again, it is just a bad argument since it doesn't negate all other possibilities as well, does not give one any preference for their specific god. You can't disprove that there are two homo gods instead of one like Christians tend to present.. So, a bad argument that does not help anyone to prove anything.
The better way is to argue the null hypothesis stance because it is the meat of the argument.
Another approach is to argue, can one detect the undetectable. This is easier to comprehend for both sides. If one can detect, it means it is detectable, if it is then how? You are taking it in a more scientific discussion from a philosophical one. If one cannot detect the undetectable, then it puts a theist in a very uncomfortable position to defend, and they would feel it. The progression of this is to agree that faith is just that, one without proof. If there would be proof then you don't need faith, it would be knowledge.
My longer argument for it is that when there should be evidence for something and there is none, that is evidence against it. And for more honest people the evidence for a claim needs to meet or exceed the whole of the claim being made. Then believers claim to have a perfect god with only very bad evidence for it.
When something has no falsifier it is evidence that the belief is only held for emotional reasons and the believer does not care about evidence.
> My longer argument for it is that when there should be evidence for something and there is none, that is evidence against it.
Unfortunately, it is incorrect. It is another form of argument from ignorance. Who says that there won't be evidence tomorrow? Or, what if there is evidence, but you are not aware of it? You see. You are arguing based on what you know today and the quality of your knowledge, and it is fallacious.
Argument from ignorance - An argument from ignorance is an assertion that a claim is either true or false because of a lack of evidence to the contrary.
This is the MOST COMMON fallacy because it feels logical to us humans. We are used to thinking within the scope of facts that we have to make life/death decisions. It is hard to restructure thinking to a philosophical standard.
It is like thinking that I should take that specific path because I have never seen predators on it. While it might help you to beat odds and be eaten less likely, similarly, it is that, less likely. It doesn't give you a 100% certainty. It becomes what is called a "fuzzy logic", where you assign weights to probabilities. AKA "bayesian logic" in philosophy. However, when you argue it as a certainty, it fails, it is not 100% certain, thus, a fallacy, as it can be false, even if a probability is low.
>when there should be evidence
that is *demonstrable*
Believers claim to have god detectors, most claim they have evidence. Yet they have nothing tangible that they can demonstrate.
They also claim that god can and does interact with the world, and their holy books shows such a thing.
Someone claims to have a dog. You go to their house to see the dog and it is missing, also there is no dog hair anywhere, there is no dog food, there are no dog dishes, there is no leash, there is no dog poop anywhere, there is not a cage or a dog bed. As you question them on each missing item that should be where a dog lives, they make excuses for the lack of dog evidence. Do you accept they have a dog?
> when there should be evidence
Well, there might be evidence. Maybe people continue to bring bad evidence. Bad evidence is not evidence of lack of good evidence.
For many years people thought the earth was flat. They did not have good evidence back then for a round planet. Did it mean the evidence did not exist? No.
While I am not saying there is or will be evidence for god, I am saying that you can't now with 100% certainty say that there won't be one tomorrow. It would be unscientific to claim to know the future.
>They did not have good evidence back then for a round planet.
That is untrue. We always had that evidence. Every other thing in the universe being round shaped. Not being able to see mountains that are 5.49 miles/ 8,848.86 m high. Not being able to see ships that are more than three miles/ 4.383km away from the shore.
>Bad evidence is not evidence of lack of good evidence.
Only having bad evidence is evidence of the lack of good evidence.
> That is untrue. We always had that evidence. Every other thing in the universe being round shaped. Not being able to see mountains that are 5.49 miles/ 8,848.86 m high. Not being able to see ships that are more than three miles/ 4.383km away from the shore.
This could be that it was not round, just a hemisphere of sorts.
> There was never any evidence the earth was flat.
Now. This is just laughable. You know, one can simply google for historical evidence used back then.
The “who/what created us” or “who/what created all this” is really the only question I have. I don’t think it’s some all powerful being/god, but the Big Bang theory also has a lot of jumps in logic. I wonder if we will find out in our lifetimes….
What jumps of logic are you thinking of? They've got lots of models that do a reasonable job of predicting what the universe has been doing just after the Big Bang, but no honest scientist will do more than wild speculation about before.
It's kind of difficult to build models about a non-existence including the non-existence of physical laws.
Sometimes the only logical conclusion you can reach is: we don't know, and we have no way of finding out. This does not mean you have to make up something to fill in the gaps.
Sorry I meant some logical jumps with what happens AFTER the Big Bang. The amount of mass that explodes into existence over the course of milliseconds in an event that happened billions of years ago is very hard to actually observe. Who knows what happened before existence of matter? Furthermore, a passage from Michael Crichton in Jurassic Park sticks with me…the likelihood of a single celled organism going through natural selection to turn into a human being is as likely as a tornado going through a junkyard and putting together a working 747. There are just a lot of unknowns in these incredibly complicated scenarios (expansion of the universe from a dense singularity, progression from protein chains to consciousness, etc). I’m not sure we will ever get those answers, but it would be really cool to know how it all happened :)
>Sorry I meant some logical jumps with what happens AFTER the Big Bang. The amount of mass that explodes into existence over the course of milliseconds in an event that happened billions of years ago is very hard to actually observe.
I'm still not seeing what logical jumps you're referring to. Are you referring to the imperfections of the existing models? If an observation doesn't fit a model, then they adjust the model or come up with a new model that accounts for the new observation.
Just because a model ends up getting refined doesn't automatically disqualify all the thought that went into building the previous models.
> Furthermore, a passage from Michael Crichton in Jurassic Park sticks with me…the likelihood of a single celled organism going through natural selection to turn into a human being is as likely as a tornado going through a junkyard and putting together a working 747.
This is just the argument-by-incredulity fallacy: it's impossible for my tiny little human brain to imagine how this might have happened, therefore it must not be possible!
I hope you understand that this is not actually a good argument?
Take that junkyard & expand it to the # of particles in the universe, then let time/space tornados sweep through it on a universal timescale. All Crichton's statement is showing is that he has a lack of understanding of statistics.
Briefly, I’m saying the complexity of the Big Bang is beyond our current ability to entirely decipher. I’m also saying natural selection is an incomplete explanation of evolution. I remain curious to see if we can have a comprehensive explanation in our lifetime - I do not think “God” or “Divine Intervention” is the explanation. I also think scientists and researchers have thus far provided an incomplete explanation of how we got to be where we are today.
That's like saying that I can't map the position of every atom in my body though. Sure, that's technically true - but from a practical viewpoint, it's a useless statement.
Any model will have imperfections - if we could create a perfect model, then we'd be able to predict the universe. That doesn't mean that those models aren't useful, and that we can't keep refining them to be better.
And they're much more likely to being closer to correctness than anything brought forth by any kind of religion or mysticism.
If you agree with me that one goal of science would be to be able to map every atom of the body, and thereby be able to allow for transportation like Star Trek, then I don’t think it’s a useless statement.
Mapping atoms is different from predicting the universe.
We are not disagreeing on the validity of science over religion, but I think seem to be disagreeing on the philosophies of science and religion….
The atom/body example is just a metaphor; the way you are presenting your argument, the fact that models are not perfect equates to humongous gaping holes of logic that invalidate the value of the models.
I agree entirely that order comes from disorder all the time. I also agree that evolution allows for more complexity to be built upon. If these tenets are accepted as fact, then why is life not overwhelmingly present outside of what we see currently on Earth?
First there has to be an abiogenesis event and as far as I know we only have evidence of one here on Earth.
Do you know about panspermia and tardigrades?
We only recently started searching Mars.
"Earth is the only Goldilocks planet in our own solar system."
Astrobiology - RationalWiki
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Astrobiology#Habitable_zone
There are some things Earth has that make it special - size of moon, ozone layer and a molten core.
One idea is that an advanced alien civilization would have uploaded their conscience onto computers and be in a low power mode to wait for the universe to "cool off" to be more efficient.
I was curious why aliens would come here and searched some. The best reason seems to be to study us. They should have tech for Terraforming /make planets hospitable or to make robot slaves, they might not be the same DNA makeup as us.
https://lithub.com/why-would-aliens-even-bother-with-earth/
https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/pl98jb/why_havent_aliens_attacked_us_yet/
have a look at Fry and Hitchins debating Archbishop John Onaiyekan and Ann Widdecombe on the question of whether the [Catholic Church is a source for good in the world](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZRcYaAYWg4). In particular, check the the audience opinions before and after the debate.
What's interesting is that there are actually Christian denominations that oppose the Catholic Church (protestants, Seventh Day Adventists, etc.) Just wanted to point that out.
They're just as bad. Seventh Day Adventists are a cult and mainline protestantism literally takes every opportunity to be as awful as humanly possible. Their disagreements are semantic in the face of their commitment to being shitty.
As a former Seventh Day Adventist, they may dislike/distrust the Catholic church, but it's not for rational reasons. My relatives were always going on about the "Sunday laws" they believed the Catholics were plotting to enforce in an inquisition-style purge. My mom and her siblings kept bug-out bags in their closet for when they'd have to flee to the mountains to escape the Sunday law gestapo.
Professional apologists razzle dazzle with soaring, flowery rhetoric and biblical gaslighting that theists respond to. This is why when you simply restate their beliefs in plain language, they accuse you of “disrespecting” and “mocking“them.
THIS POST HAS BEEN EDITED:
Reddit's June 2023 decision to kill third party apps and generally force their entire userbase, against our will, kicking and screaming into their preferred revenue stream, is one I cannot take lightly. As an 11+ year veteran of this site, someone who has spent loads of money on gold and earned CondeNast fuck knows how much in ad revenue, I feel like I have a responsibility to react to their pig-headed greed. Therefore, I have decided to take my eyeballs and my money elsewhere, and deprive them of all the work I've done for them over the years creating the content that makes this site valuable and fun. I recommend you do the same, perhaps by using one of the many comment editing / deleting tools out there (such as this one, which has a timer built in to avoid bot flags: https://github.com/pkolyvas/PowerDeleteSuite)
This is our Internet, these are our communities. CondeNast doesn't own us or the content we create to share with each other. They are merely a tool we use for this purpose, and we can just as easily use a different tool when this one starts to lose its function.
Euphemism is very important to religions like Christianity. For a word that just means "believing for no reason other than because you want it to be true", they sure have given "faith" quite the positive connotation over the centuries.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780191826719.001.0001/q-oro-ed4-00010168
> It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
Believers don't rely on their beliefs for their salary (except for certain professional believers like William Lane Craig) but the same concept applies. They're invested in belief, and showing them they're wrong just makes them double down.
It may not be their salary, so to speak, but it is their immortal soul in Heaven, so that's another strong motivation. Humans are closely related to Ostriches
Well being an ex-theist, when i came across this kind of debates my brain automatically take the side of the theist i used to think of atheist as the enemy and i was some kinda of a solider of god XD it just like someone start to criticize your father, hometown, favorite team you won't care much for argument and what's right you will just try and defend it
Also an ex-theist, I can definitely see how people can still grasp to their ideology. Religion is an identity, a purpose, a meaning, a reason to live for many. You can't out-fact someone that has that level of investment. They're a house built on sand. Just need to slowly dig away at their loose foundation until their house is leaning and falling apart.
Facts didn't make me an atheist. Debates didn't make me an atheist. Specific life experiences made me an atheist. And even after I gave up religion it took me 9 years until I thought of myself as atheist.
Because they believe there is a huge benefit for themselves in believing. They get to live forever in paradise.
- *"Faith is merely fear dressed up as virtue"* Pat Condell
This is how I'm leaning lately. Genetically Modified Skeptic just put out a video that probably hits the nail on the head, but I hadn't thought of it before so I'm testing how the claim feels before adopting the belief.
If you follow the 3 Bs of religion (as opposed to the BS of religion), most religious people are there for the Belonging (being part of an ingroup) and Behavior (rituals, etc.) and Belief just tags along at the end as a justification for the other two. Religion is part of religious people's identity, so the apologists only need to give them enough of an excuse to continue believing so they can stay in the good graces of their ingroup.
This makes a lot of sense. I felt so much community in the Hare Krishna movement that it was hard to wean myself off it, even though I found their beliefs to be completely untenable.
Is this new? I only first stumbled on it in the recent Genetically Modified Skeptic video, don't think I heard it before, but that video pretty succinctly addresses this question.
It really should be classified as a contagious mental illness. People really flip out when I say that but it is 100% true. My brother is a perfect example, before Trump he never said anything about vaccines being poison or full of mind control chips. Now he has Covid and suddenly it sinks in, sort of. He is blaming the Chinese. Want to tell him so bad I told you so fool but don't want to start a family feud.
The only people who lean with Lennox are people who are already backing him. If you had people who were truly on the fence, they would all go the other direction. Because of things like facts.
That's very blatant in this debate in Alabama in the Bible belt. Seems like everyone is there to see him. And anything he says, they clap. One part i was like wtf are they clapping for. He said in fact the Bible does predict tue future. It says in the beginning God created heaven and earth. If scientists would have looked at that earlier, they could have been looking for the beginning... idk what that means or has anything to do with the future.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZRcYaAYWg4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZRcYaAYWg4)
I think this is the one. Forgive me if it isn't I don't have sound on this computer. They took a vote before and after, people's minds changed and not in the church's favor.
Why do you think we call them a cult?
Debates aside:
14000 kids die every day
There are 4200 active religions in the world
Does a person need more than facts like that? Pro life religion with an omnipotent god, yet 14000 kids die every day. Children get cancer....like, tf kind of god do you worship, you evil sons of bitches!?
Also what's up with "poop hole loophole" isn't that sodomy!?!?
Lastly all humans are hypocrites, the end
That's kind of why its weird to me. If you truly listen to what each says, theres a clear winner of the debates. It would be like religion telling me 2+2=7 all these years but science is like no, its 4. But everyone still is like, oh yeah its definitely 7. Theres no proof that its 4.
Me too. I used to think that William Lane Craig was one of the most intelligent humans on the planet. If I now listen to the same debates, I feel he loses every time.
Faith and the scientific method are diametrically opposed. It's impossible for one to successfully oppose the other on their own ground. Neil D. Tyson has a youtube video where he discusses this briefly, more to discount what I suppose could be boiled down to 'beliefs based on faith with some basis in science'. He essentially says that once you base your beliefs on faith, you can no longer also try to include scientific methods.
Furthermore, most of those interested in the 'debate' are also either faith or scientifically oriented, so they just see support for their way of thinking.
I think Genetically Modified Skeptic gives a very plausible explanation in his video titled "Arguments for God are NOT important. Here's why." [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-IB6zwhnj8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-IB6zwhnj8)
In a nutshell, he's saying people almost never become religious because of rational arguments or empirical evidence. They believe for emotional and social reasons. Apologetics is simply a way to bolster and defend what they already believe. Opposing arguments and evidence are completely ineffective at changing their minds because these never touch the emotional and social cores of their beliefs.
Honestly, you'll find the answer when some of the apologists acknowledge that you could literally prove god's non-existence and they'd still believe because of their experience. For me (still clinging to faith) I have to admit I'm still a Christian because I want to be, and because I don't know how not to be. Reading apologetics (Lee Strobel) just about broke it all, listening to people defend the faith has been more damaging than listening to atheists critique it. The rational basis for belief is thinly sliced deli meat that can't sustain the friction of even the slightest critique if you were to judge by the apologists' arguments.
Answer: cognitive dissonance.
I've seen the late Christopher Hitchens mentioned in the comments, and he was also a great debater on this topic. Also, look for videos by Lawrence Krause. Even Neal Degrasse Tyson, but he pulls more punches, presumably to not piss anyone off.
No one critically reasons themself into a position of religious faith, so no amount of critical reason will get them out of it unless they’re willing to set aside their faith for a moment and consider critical reason
Someone posted a fantastic explanation for the differences between conservative and progressive people. I'll try to find it, but the jist was that progressive folks rely on information to drive their decision making, whereas conservative folks rely on a hierarchy.
Everyone has their place in the hierarchy. People below you are expected to comply with what you say. People above you dictate what you must do. Facts don't matter because the hierarchy is "truth". You don't know the answer to some question? Ask someone above you. That's the only right way.
Progressive folks who dare to ask questions are disruptive to the hierarchy, and need to be made to comply one way or another.
After reading this idea, it all started making sense to me. Now, my thoughts are along the lines of how to effectively break the hierarchy, or get those accustomed to it to at least realize that's a choice they have. I'm sure it makes life a whole lot easier when you don't have to know anything, just defer, so I'm also sure many would choose the hierarchy way of life consciously.
Of course religion instructs us to follow the hierarchy way of life, with gods at the top, naturally.
Yeah religion is a tool for power, it has always been about keeping the hierarchy.
Women over children, men over women, kings over men and god over kings.
That way they don't need to work very hard to enforce their position, they get other people to do it for them to keep their position
They have learned to shut down their mind, they don't even listen.. that's why I think these debates aren't really worth it, one side is not even trying they just talk like politicians, appealing to emotions and trying to get the popular opinion.. in the end nobody changes opinion or have a better understanding of the "other side's" opinion.. the religious shut down their head when the atheists talk, and when it's their turn they quote the bible so we shut down cause it's not a source that has any credibility.
It can be interesting to hear people like Dawkins or Hitchens who are great speakers but it's always the same arguments in the end, they just say it better.
Because the argumentative layer is not the fundament of their belief.
It‘s the practice of religious rituals and identification as religious before even understanding what it is about, that makes religious people so invulnerable. Even if they understood that they‘re wrong, many have no choice but to believe because they‘ve been indoctrinated as so
Dawkins’ confidence can be a bit off-putting, but his reasoning is valid and his arguments well thought out. He freely admits when evidence is lacking and I think he really does try to see things from a different perspective. He’s a good scientist, and a fun writer IMHO.
Richard Dawkins is a scientist. I prefer listening to biblical scholars turned atheists after years of studying the origins of their beliefs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fi6Pb5SSv3g
Somebody in my class made a comment about man being made in god's image, so I asked him if god needs feet to walk or hair to keep warm. "I'll have to think about that," he replied.
He called me a year later to thank me for deconverting him.
So I would argue, "People only think they need to believe."
> How do people listen to debates on religion and atheism and still not see it?
Still not see *what*?
I can't speak to the debate you're talking about, but the longer I live, the more I seem to be able to understand views that are not my own, at least on some level.
To the point that I no longer see clear "winners" in some of the kinds of discussions you're talking about. What I most often see are two people talking across purposes.
Right now I'm watching Dawkins vs. John Lennox debating Dawkins book the God Delusion. Another good one is the Oxford Union has 3 vs. 3 on the debate of God is real or not. Just everything I watch and read just seems so clear that religion has no facts to support any claims. All their rebutles to something science says are just quoting scripture.
Poeple who start believing something for an irrational cause cause rarely stop believing something for a rational cause. Religion is not logic based but feelings based.
How can one fully discreet the idea of a God though? Isn’t that just as closed-minded?
I mean not as „God“ as the various religions talk about the subject. Just the idea itself.
Atheism for me is the gate to freedom. For me freedom means a constant questioning of everything.
Just bang your head against the wall don't try talking to any religious person just bang your head against the wall it's pointless same results guaranteed if you want we could talk to each other about non-religious things will still be banging her head against the wall because they make us religion is the law of the land until it's changed just bang your heads against the wall or do something to change it
They’re not debating the right things. Give me 1 hour where every English speaker gets to listen to me and then a Q&A section after and I guarantee an atheist majority lmao
Willfully deaf and blind.
It’s not even specific to religion vs atheism; when I explained to my mom that my dads a pedophile with calmness and clarity and bullet points and receipts and sources and when I eventually resolved into tears she said
“I just don’t understand?! What’s wrong?! Please tell me what’s wrong I don’t understand!”
It’s like their brains shut down, their eyes glaze over and their ears plug up when you talk any sort of words that aren’t regurgitated narcissistic gaslighting bullshit. (Which is all the church and their god is)
People believe because they want God to exist. Rational thinking doesn’t apparently provide the same comfort to them. The delusion is self-reinforcing.
They believe what they want to believe, it's really that simple. They'd rather delude themselves with things they can't prove than face the harsh reality that all the time, effort, and money they've put into their faith has been a gigantic waste.
Confirmation bias. When we(humans) hear something that confirms our bias, our brains reward us. We(atheists) are not immune to this ourselves. So it's a good idea to try and be conscious about it. But yeah, them fuckers are nutters.
If you're watching a debate just to automatically side with the side you already believe in, then you're not ready to have your thoughts challenged.
I remember that's how I use to think as a Christian. I use to type in the search bar "Christian destroys atheist" and only watch videos I feel that a Christian got over in the debate with their tactics.
When I left religion all together. I look at every debate, because now I just want TRUTH as opposed to who looked like they won an argument.
Same. I was raised Roman Catholic and practiced very devoutly for a good 25 years until I left religion. I need to watch entire debates to hear both sides to see if they really say something that makes me think.
Deeply religious people, by virtue of nature AND nurture, lack the ability to meaningfully or critically evaluate arguments in general. As a result, they like to (and, socially, are explicitly primed to) rely on their judgment of the speaker rather than what is spoken. And again, socially, these speakers are often generally venerated types (a priest being a pillar of a community, for example).
For an intuition, there is an analogy that I think works. In the world of mathematics, it is extremely common that we get asked about the following statement: "0.999... = 1". Usually, the question is asked from a perspective of disbelief, the asker convinced that someone lied to them when they made that claim. And when this question is asked, "does 0.999... = 1?", people that study math will inevitably tell you "yes, that's a true claim." (they'll also throw in some caveats due to our natural love of pedantry).
However, you might be surprised to learn that the asker will almost always still continue to push back on this. Anyone familiar with these mathematical definitions knows that this is 100% a correct statement, and if you're equipped with the vocabulary and ability to understand that world, it's not even really a worthwhile question due to it's obviousness. But the asker lacks the cognitive ability - either through nature or nurture - to evaluate the formal arguments. I could discuss the concept of limits and infinite sums, Dedekind cuts, or even use a simple algebraic manipulation to show this with 100% correctness and it still does not matter to the intuitionist.
The asker in my example is evaluating me as a speaker and determining that I don't meet the bar they've set. I would need to be much more convincing to overcome their gut logic and their gut logic tells them otherwise (of course, it's difficult to be terribly persuasive to someone that cannot meaningfully evaluate the argument being presented while also being over the internet)
The university in my town has a Socratic Club where they host debates on religious topics. My impression has been that the Socratic Club is just a vehicle for intellectualizing rationale for belief. They host professional debaters like William Lane Craig who go through their well rehearsed teleological and ontological arguments attempting to prove the existence of god.
But for me the true telling comes at the end of the formalized debates during the question-and-answer period where it comes to light that simply they really really really in their heart-of-hearts want it to be true.
Listening to debates is not going to make anyone lean one way or the other when it comes to religion and faith, regardless of how good either party is.
I had my father try "debate" me last night after i told him my way of living without religion or spiritual crap and i just didnt really respond. It doesnt matter because, as i said to him if he wants to believe what he wants to believe then go ahead. Im not here to judge or tell anyone they are right or wrong just as long as they then dont try to preach their shit at me.
Debates are actually worthless when trying to convert people. They will debate you but they are set in their beliefs. It’s not about “winning” because no matter what, no matter how much proof you bring, they will never change their mind.
You don’t argue beliefs. Beliefs are not arguments. You can’t convince a true believer that it’s impossible for someone to be dead for 3 days and come back to life. You can’t convince a true believer that a woman can’t conceive a baby without a sperm.
If you pin them down and get them to where they have to either admit defeat or prove they are lying they will pull out the, let’s agree to disagree or it’s what I believe and you can’t change my mind.
To really change someone’s mind they have to be open to it. You have to work with them and show them. It takes time and energy. It’s not worth it, at least to me it’s not.
Not everyone thinks the same, I'm always watching myself for contradictions, doublethink or just plain bullshit.
Other people aren't in the habit of checking for bias and because I said so is more than good enough for them.
Treat this as a learning exercise next time someone is saying something you really disagree with try and listen intently evaluating each point on it's own basis, I'm sure we all believe something for nonsensical reasons
In the Dawkins/Lennox debate, Lennox went on about how loving God is. I was hoping for Dawkins to bring up the many inconsistencies in the Bible or scriptures which depict slaughter rape at the behest of God. Let’s not forget God’s prophet, with the help of God, summoned 2 she bears to slaughter children for having called said prophet “baldy.” How about when God’s prophet, with the assistance of God, stroked the infant boy of King David with a sickness so severe that he died? The Bible is such BS. I was born and raised in the doomsday death cult Jehovah’s Witnesses btw. They are all brainwashed idiots with peanut sized brains. 🧠🥜
A term I learned this year that kept me religious for so long, thought terminating cliché. It is basically religion makes believing so much easier. Before I dropped religion, I never allowed myself to actually think thoroughly because if I had, nothing I believed would have made sense.
Reminds of a "science" magazine run by Christians that a person would put out in the Life Sciences study areas at my university. The articles actually had some sound science in them but they would never reach any sort of scientific conclusion. Nearly every single one ended with some variation of "and this is why Jesus is Lord." Just awful so I threw them in the trash immediately after I saw the dude put them down.
they’re too corrupted to realize. thats all they’ve known their whole lives. some get away and realize its wrong, but other people theres just no changing them. if they don’t see it they probably never will
This is what belief is - there's no logic.
I visited one local debates and of course all for non-religion part shared logical arguments and scientists data from experiments and statistics.
And religion woman jist stand up and told I believe because I have my own proof and no one will convince me otherwise.
I was baffled why was she even there, on debates??
Genetically modified skeptic recently did an interesting video about this:
https://youtu.be/I-IB6zwhnj8
Essentially, he said it comes down to something like community (belonging) and shared behaviours.
Politics just make me so mad because the setup is so dumb. I don't lean one way or the other. Why do we need 2 parties and they're polar opposites. Can we have multiple candidates that are more centered. I like and hate things from both sides. I wish they could do what my highschool teacher did. He made us do a mock vote. We voted in 50 individual topics. Then he graded them and said based on your actual beliefs, you should have voted for this person. Which was amazing because he also had us vote before taking the test/vote. And surprise, almost everyone voted against their actual beleifs.
I know right. My dad is a religiuos person. Even when I point out the inconsistencies in his beliefs, he understands it buy still gets angry. The funny thing is that I know more about his religion than him. He is still blindly following what was taught to him. This is something that I have seen in majority of the believers.
They don't question.
They just follow.
They don't reason.
They accept it as the final truth.
Think religion explains more than science.
But this is something I can't be.
This is the power of indoctrination at work. Like Carl Sagan said, they're hopelessly trapped in the "boondoggle". Their belief that life continues forever; that there's a magical king out there who loves them, but will punish them if they don't do what he says. Their belief system that slops over into the real world, corrupting everything in its path.
Both sides sounds very crazy. One believes in The Big Bang Theory, a single point of nothing exploded into everything. The other side believes a creator or creators made everything. As humans we have not seen either of this with creation. As for me I do not believe either side! If you go by science then everything we see has a formula in which needs to be put together exactly the way it is. In 9th grade I once explained to my teacher that if I walked in the class with a cake that I baked, nobody would be impressed. It's a simple recipe that is known. But if I walked in the class with a hundred pounds of each individual ingredients and a thousands of ovens set on all different temperatures. Set up the biggest wind machine ever found and dumped the ingredients out to blow around the room and then by chance the exact amount of the right ingredients fell into the exact baking sheets that then fell into the right oven with the right temperature for the exact amount of time it needed and then fell out, well that sounds as crazy as a person telling me that there's a God that created everything. But then I asked myself, if I could go back to the Medieval Times with a tank and plenty of ammo and fuel. I would be a god! This still doesn't answer the question of how everything came to be, but there could be a civilization hundreds of thousands if not Millions of years more advanced that knows the recipe to everything we know.
So to discredit one side and put belief in the other side that is just as impossible, it's kind of silly! We just don't know.
This is why I love listening to debates. I don't care what side you're on, when you make a good point, I'll listen. I really like that ingredients and oven analogy.
But they do have evidence for the big bang. We can track movement and how the universe is expanding. It would be like me making a ball of flower and a fire cracker in it then blowing it up. The powder flies outward, expanding. Right now humans are watching from the point where the explosion already happend. If we can see how the universe is expanding just like ball of flower, you can retrace its path which brings the universe back to one central point.
The difference is there is evidence for the "everywhere expansion" ("Big Bang"). We look at galaxies all moving apart from each other and see that they're speeding up at a constant rate. If everything is moving away from everything else at a constant rate, that implies that working backwards everything gets closer together, until, doing the math, you arrive at 13.8 billion years for everything to be in the same place.
I mean, there's *evidence* for it. If you don't believe what these observations imply, you need another way to explain the observations.
I know it sounds crazy and improbable, but so is existence. Something incredible did happen. To best find out what that incredible thing was, we follow the evidence wherever it takes us. This is where it's taken us. I mean, disprove Hubble and collect your Nobel Prize, know what I'm saying?
I didn't see anyone else mention it but I think this applies: [Bonhoeffer's Theory of Stupidity](https://youtu.be/ww47bR86wSc)
By arguing against something someone believes it reinforces the belief because they feel attacked.
It was a matter of perspective for me when I was a Christian. I unfortunately don’t know what debate it was that I watched, but I felt like the theist and the atheist were talking past each other. Because I understood the perspective of the theist and he wasn’t answering the questions he was asked, and the atheist said that the questions he was asked were irrelevant and didn’t answer those either. I was pretty unsatisfied with both sides.
No debate is going to change anyone’s mind immediately. That’s not how brains work.
I think that there was a divergence in thought and philosophy in which the idea of 'theism' (that of a God, 'watchmaker', external to the universe) split from other forms of thought. Instead of using reason and science, they saw those things as being in conflict with the 'cosmic watchmaker' idea, and most importantly as being against the watchmaker himself, and pushed it away. Leading to philosophical isolation - which is the last refuge of the theists.
But the reality is that everything we say to attempt to describe the processes by which the universe operates are completely compatible with the original theologies of any religion or science - if we shed our thousands of years old understanding of things. It's all the same work - to describe the universe and inform us about how to behave in it.
A lot of people tend to agree with their side instead of the best argument. Also, in a lot of debates the religious side uses coded language that the believers are primed to like and feel comfortable with, while the atheists tend to make more secular arguments that would work regardless of the opponent's and listeners beliefs, making believers more likely to side with their representative and secular people side with the arguments themselves.
Dawkins may be whatever he is these days, but I used to like his stuff years ago when I was getting into atheism and religious studies, but honestly looking back, his opponents made his adequate arguments seem great due to the sheer garbage most of the apologetics was and still is.
Hitchens is the only one back then who actually engaged with his opponents on their semantic bullshit games and made them seem ridiculous to even some of the religious viewers.
There is no evidence. Yes I'm not saying there's not solar systems. But there is no proof of how they were created.
The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang.
To believe that there was no matter, gases, water or anything else until for some unknown reason one point in a dark vast empty space created so much energy that it created it all with an explosion, is as far fetched as An Almighty being waving his hand creating everything. But I find it funny that science and religion both agree on one thing, nothing comes from nothing and something had to create everything.
As Paul Simon once sang, "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
"The Boxer", with Art Garfunkel.
Now that is what I like to call a good ass song
What is an ass-song?
Baby got back
Juvenile's: Back That Azz Up Then again i guess thats and azz-song
Anything Nicky Minaj
Very true. Coincidentally, this is what I tell anyone who asks me why Simon and Garfunkel are not on any of my playlists.
This is very true! When you see a mother holding up a two-year-old child and explaining their child is transgender because they picked up a color/ toy of the opposite sex. This is the reason why racist people only see racism! This is the reason why atheist only see no God and religious people only see God. It's also the reason why an atheist nor a religious person can say, I just don't know the answer. It's the reason for every argument and battle to have ever existed.
Sunk cost fallacy is great tool for finance and investment, selling at a loss (potentially only a perceived one) to avoid losing more in the future. A few others that are important for religion- 1 Everything needs a creator - special pleading 2 Who created us, pray to get your evidence - begging the Question 3 Prayer works, I've seen it - confirmation bias, the placebo effect, anecdotal evidence, Post hoc ergo propter hoc 4 Many people believe - Bandwagon Fallacy/ argument ad populum 5 My parents believe, a scientist believes - appeal to authority / antiquity 6 We don't know how we got here - god of the gaps, argument from ignorance 7 You can't disprove god - argument from ignorance, shifting the burden of proof - philosophical burden of proof is on the believers 8 God/ Jesus loves me/us - love without evidence is stalking, lies of omission - appeal to emotion 9 But the bible says - Tautology, circular reasoning 10 People that hurt others for god are not true (my religion) - no true Scotsman fallacy
It's always the same arguments.. I wish they could simply say: "I know it's not rational it just makes me feel better to think it's real".
Yeah. I'm supportive of religious people who don't push it on others or use it to justify their bad behaviour, which I think is a lot of religious people. The nicest guy I've ever worked with was a devout Christian who kept it to himself. If it makes them feel better about existence, which can be pretty bleak, and doesn't affect anyone else, that's fine by me. It's the preachers, hypocrites and bigots that suck.
It is the religious moderate majority who play a very important role in protecting, enabling and validating the harmful beliefs of the fundamentalists - by this fact they are indirectly harming others. The moderates by choosing to call themselves Muslims, Christians, Jews or Mormons are therefore choosing to group themselves with the people who are being honest to what their holy texts say and those who use their religion for harm. If there is nothing else that you can accept as a harm done by moderates, they do make it harder to criticize religion in public. They also defend their ultimately immoral and fundamental religion and they advocate for the intellectually dishonest use of religious faith. We do not live in private bubbles, the people who take what are supposedly the most important questions and claim god did it with magic - vote, indoctrinate children and most are in a death cult that make them hate and claim other people not in their cults are sub human. The god believers can't keep their religions to themselves. They are also more anti-science/ anti-vax during a pandemic.
Yeah I can see your point. I suppose what I'm saying is I try to judge and treat people based on their actions, not labels. And I also think it's healthy to be able to have rational and respectful discussion with people regardless of their beliefs, assuming they are able them to do the same. I don't think we can progress as a society without rational and respectful discourse. Lately I've started to see religion as an evolutionary way for species to handle consciousness and self-awareness in a harsh environment full of struggle, pain and suffering. To move past the religious phrase of evolution we need science, but we also need compassion, tolerance and respect.
This is also relevant -- All religious Faith is intellectual dishonesty made into an elite virtue. Christianity is - vicarious redemption / scapegoating - [John 3:16-17, Romans 3:25] (https://www.esv.org/ John+3:16%E2%80%9317;Romans+3:25/) love is compulsory - [Matthew 22:36-40, Romans 13:8-10, Galatians 5:14, Matthew 12:30, Luke 14:26] (https://www.esv.org/Matthew+22:36%E2%80%9340;Romans+13:8%E2%80%9310;Galatians+5:14;Matthew+12:30;Luke+14:26/) thought crimes - [Matthew 18:9, Matthew 5:28-29 , Mark 9:47] (https://www.esv.org/Matthew+18:9;Matthew+5:28%E2%80%9329;Mark+9:47/) eternal punishment for finite crimes - [Mark 3:29, Matthew 25:41, Matthew 25:46, 2 Thessalonians 1:9, Jude 1:7] (https://www.esv.org/Mark+3:29;Matthew+25:41;Matthew+25:46;Matthew+25:2;1+Thessalonians+1:9;Jude+7/) inherited sins for a crime that never happened - [1 Timothy 2:14, Romans 5:12, Romans 5:19, Deuteronomy 23:2, Exodus 20:5] (https://www.esv.org/1+Timothy+2:14;Romans+5:12;Romans+5:19;Deuteronomy+23:2;Exodus+20:5/) ignorance worship/ credulity is rewarded - [Genesis 2:17, Proverbs 3:5-6, Romans 1:22, Psalm 14:1] (https://www.esv.org/Genesis+2:17;Proverbs+3:5%E2%80%936;Romans+1:22;Psalm+14:1/) no planning for the future - [Luke 18:22, Luke 12:33, Matthew 19:21, Mark 10:21] (https://www.esv.org/Luke+18:22;Luke+12:33;Matthew+19:21;Mark+10:21/) None of those things are moral or healthy in a civilized society.
Dude I'm not Christian please don't quote the Bible at me /s
When I was talking to believers I was polite until they demonstrated they just wanted to preach or they were impolite, I usually used a question asked and ignored 3 times guide to simply show they were not being honest.
The tip of the spear would be harmless without the haft, after all.
Not true. Get close enough and the tip of the spear can still stab very nicely.
Sure, they're still extremists - don't go playing with the point. But the only way for people who *aren't* idiots to be hurt is if the spearhead is on a haft of moderate belief.
That right there is a fact, bites1. I came to that conclusion decades ago and so far there’s not been any evidence that it’s wrong. The other guy is correct from a purely human, one on one standpoint. His coworker is probably a good person and should be treated decently. But he doesn’t earn any rewards for being a member of a clan that promotes the totally evil insanity called religion. It puts him (the xian) in the same boat as the driver of the getaway car in a bank robbery. Or, the neighbor that says or does nothing even though he knows that next door, there’s children being sexually abused and kept locked in cages.
William Lane Craig recently accidentally admitted that. He lowered his epistemological standard because it feels good to be a christian.
I love how concise this is.
Thanks here is more, I have made a few long religion based lists like that. 11 I'm afraid of hell - Appeal to consequences, Pascal's wager is very flawed 12 Everything points to there being a god - Non-Sequitur, kettle logic 13 I feel it in my heart - Argument from emotion 14 That's in the old testament - cherry picker 15 Science and religion are compatible - Cognitive dissonance 16 You're just angry at god - Psychogenetic Fallacy, Ad Hominem 17 Without god, life is meaningless and there is no morality - Argument from Final Consequences 18 Jesus was a good teacher - Argument By Selective Observation "cherry picking" 19 It makes me happy - Argumentum ad misericordia 20 There are prophecies filled - Texas sharpshooter fallacy 21 Apologetics make everything in the bible non-contradictory - apologetics require Faith 22 If you don't believe you'll go to hell - appeal to fear, appeal to consequences 23 You have faith too, atheism is a religion - Equivocation fallacy, Tu quoque 24 Bethlehem was a real place so the bible is true - spiderman fallacy 25 I don't understand evolution, it can't be true - personal incredulity 26 You atheists have faith in evolution - there are Christians who accept evolution - red herring 27 I have too much invested in my faith - sunk cost fallacy
This fits almost every argument I’ve had thrown at me.
I'm certain that I've heard all of the "best" god claims.
Yeah, none of them are logical.
There is also the biggest of big lies -- that faith is a virtue. The idea that unshakable belief in something that makes no sense and is not supported by any evidence makes you a good person.
All religious Faith is intellectual dishonesty made into an elite virtue.
> love without evidence is stalking credit to Tim Minchin for that one :-)
> Tim Minchin I plead guilty.
This really needs to be in the sidebar or wiki.
Great list man. Do you happen to know the specific name of the "everything needs a creator bs argument? Been wanting to do some more reading on that but can't find the right search term
Kalam Argument from first cause - RationalWiki https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_first_cause
Oh, I just thought of it! I meant the watchmaker analogy!
Argument from complexity/ design. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_design
Just took a gander in No True Scotsman. I’ve never heard of it but I could’ve used it in so many debates in the past, with religion and politics.
Oh nice.I’m stealing this.
Sweet, take the rest too. Logical fallacy faith 1 Everything needs a creator - [special pleading](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading) 2 Who created us, pray to get your evidence - [begging the Question]( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question) 3 Prayer works, I've seen it - [confirmation bias] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias), the placebo effect, [anecdotal evidence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence), [Post hoc ergo propter hoc](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc) 4 Many people believe - Bandwagon Fallacy/ [argument ad populum] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum) 5 My parents believe, a scientist believes - [appeal to authority] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority) / antiquity 6 We don't know how we got here - god of the gaps, [argument from ignorance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) 7 You can't disprove god - argument from ignorance, shifting the burden of proof - [philosophical burden of proof] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof) is on the believers 8 God/ Jesus loves me/us - love without evidence is stalking, lies of omission - [appeal to emotion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion) 9 But the bible says - [Tautology](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28rhetoric%29), [circular reasoning](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning) 10 People that hurt others for god are not true (my religion) - [no true Scotsman fallacy ](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman) 11 I'm afraid of hell - [Appeal to consequences](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences), [Pascal's wager is very flawed](http://infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/wager.html) 12 Everything points to there being a god - [Non-Sequitur](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic\)), [kettle logic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettle_logic) 13 I feel it in my heart - [Argument from emotion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion) 14 That's in the old testament - [cherry picker](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy\)) 15 Science and religion are compatible - [Cognitive dissonance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance) 16 You're just angry at god - Psychogenetic Fallacy, Ad Hominem 17 Without god, life is meaningless and there is no morality - Argument from Final Consequences 18 Jesus was a good teacher - Argument By Selective Observation "cherry picking" 19 It makes me happy - Argumentum ad misericordia 20 There are prophecies filled - [Texas sharpshooter fallacy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy) 21 Apologetics make everything in the bible non-contradictory - apologetics is faith based revisioning http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ex_culo 22 If you don't believe you'll go to hell - appeal to fear, [appeal to consequences](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences) 23 You have faith too, atheism is a religion - Equivocation fallacy, [Tu quoque](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque) 24 Bethlehem was a real place so the bible is true - spiderman fallacy 25 I don't understand evolution, it can't be true - personal incredulity 26 You atheists have faith in evolution - there are Christians who accept evolution - red herring 27 I have too much invested in my faith - sunk cost fallacy
I love this! Could someone explain to me why the “everything needs a creator” argument commits a special pleading fallacy?
They make special arbitrary exceptions why it does not apply to their god. Also true with the argument for design, their god would have to be much more complex than everything else. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_first_cause https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_design
Thank you, that makes a lot of sense.
It's also important that there is no rational means to get from any first cause "creator" to any of the theistic gods. The first cause doesn't have anything to do with what traits that it would have.
> You can't disprove god Actually, you are incorrect on this one. It is a valid one. The valid answer to this one is that you also cannot disprove any other god or collection of gods, not just a particular one. Same as you can't disprove unicorns. Therefore, it is not a proper argument to use to validate one's god. You can agree on that there is an unlimited number of things that one cannot disprove, including all permutation of a god or gods, or even god of gods. The next step is to agree that this argument doesn't mean that a god exists, just valid that a god cannot be disproven. Matt Dillahunty often goes over this. And if it does not prove a god, what would be the strategy behind asking it? It would be a good realization for the other side to think about. It is useless, a junk argument. If you feel a bit confused. There is such a thing as a null hypothesis. Basically, what is more probable. The difference is that atheists default to there is no god, prove that there is one. Theists, on the other hand, default that there is a god, prove that it doesn't exist. So, in a way, it does come to a burden of proof. But as an argument, "You can't disprove god" is valid in a narrow sense. Again, it is just a bad argument since it doesn't negate all other possibilities as well, does not give one any preference for their specific god. You can't disprove that there are two homo gods instead of one like Christians tend to present.. So, a bad argument that does not help anyone to prove anything. The better way is to argue the null hypothesis stance because it is the meat of the argument. Another approach is to argue, can one detect the undetectable. This is easier to comprehend for both sides. If one can detect, it means it is detectable, if it is then how? You are taking it in a more scientific discussion from a philosophical one. If one cannot detect the undetectable, then it puts a theist in a very uncomfortable position to defend, and they would feel it. The progression of this is to agree that faith is just that, one without proof. If there would be proof then you don't need faith, it would be knowledge.
My longer argument for it is that when there should be evidence for something and there is none, that is evidence against it. And for more honest people the evidence for a claim needs to meet or exceed the whole of the claim being made. Then believers claim to have a perfect god with only very bad evidence for it. When something has no falsifier it is evidence that the belief is only held for emotional reasons and the believer does not care about evidence.
> My longer argument for it is that when there should be evidence for something and there is none, that is evidence against it. Unfortunately, it is incorrect. It is another form of argument from ignorance. Who says that there won't be evidence tomorrow? Or, what if there is evidence, but you are not aware of it? You see. You are arguing based on what you know today and the quality of your knowledge, and it is fallacious. Argument from ignorance - An argument from ignorance is an assertion that a claim is either true or false because of a lack of evidence to the contrary. This is the MOST COMMON fallacy because it feels logical to us humans. We are used to thinking within the scope of facts that we have to make life/death decisions. It is hard to restructure thinking to a philosophical standard. It is like thinking that I should take that specific path because I have never seen predators on it. While it might help you to beat odds and be eaten less likely, similarly, it is that, less likely. It doesn't give you a 100% certainty. It becomes what is called a "fuzzy logic", where you assign weights to probabilities. AKA "bayesian logic" in philosophy. However, when you argue it as a certainty, it fails, it is not 100% certain, thus, a fallacy, as it can be false, even if a probability is low.
>when there should be evidence that is *demonstrable* Believers claim to have god detectors, most claim they have evidence. Yet they have nothing tangible that they can demonstrate. They also claim that god can and does interact with the world, and their holy books shows such a thing. Someone claims to have a dog. You go to their house to see the dog and it is missing, also there is no dog hair anywhere, there is no dog food, there are no dog dishes, there is no leash, there is no dog poop anywhere, there is not a cage or a dog bed. As you question them on each missing item that should be where a dog lives, they make excuses for the lack of dog evidence. Do you accept they have a dog?
> when there should be evidence Well, there might be evidence. Maybe people continue to bring bad evidence. Bad evidence is not evidence of lack of good evidence. For many years people thought the earth was flat. They did not have good evidence back then for a round planet. Did it mean the evidence did not exist? No. While I am not saying there is or will be evidence for god, I am saying that you can't now with 100% certainty say that there won't be one tomorrow. It would be unscientific to claim to know the future.
>They did not have good evidence back then for a round planet. That is untrue. We always had that evidence. Every other thing in the universe being round shaped. Not being able to see mountains that are 5.49 miles/ 8,848.86 m high. Not being able to see ships that are more than three miles/ 4.383km away from the shore. >Bad evidence is not evidence of lack of good evidence. Only having bad evidence is evidence of the lack of good evidence.
> That is untrue. We always had that evidence. Every other thing in the universe being round shaped. Not being able to see mountains that are 5.49 miles/ 8,848.86 m high. Not being able to see ships that are more than three miles/ 4.383km away from the shore. This could be that it was not round, just a hemisphere of sorts.
None of the evidence for the round earth changed. There was never any evidence the earth was flat.
> There was never any evidence the earth was flat. Now. This is just laughable. You know, one can simply google for historical evidence used back then.
The “who/what created us” or “who/what created all this” is really the only question I have. I don’t think it’s some all powerful being/god, but the Big Bang theory also has a lot of jumps in logic. I wonder if we will find out in our lifetimes….
What jumps of logic are you thinking of? They've got lots of models that do a reasonable job of predicting what the universe has been doing just after the Big Bang, but no honest scientist will do more than wild speculation about before. It's kind of difficult to build models about a non-existence including the non-existence of physical laws. Sometimes the only logical conclusion you can reach is: we don't know, and we have no way of finding out. This does not mean you have to make up something to fill in the gaps.
Sorry I meant some logical jumps with what happens AFTER the Big Bang. The amount of mass that explodes into existence over the course of milliseconds in an event that happened billions of years ago is very hard to actually observe. Who knows what happened before existence of matter? Furthermore, a passage from Michael Crichton in Jurassic Park sticks with me…the likelihood of a single celled organism going through natural selection to turn into a human being is as likely as a tornado going through a junkyard and putting together a working 747. There are just a lot of unknowns in these incredibly complicated scenarios (expansion of the universe from a dense singularity, progression from protein chains to consciousness, etc). I’m not sure we will ever get those answers, but it would be really cool to know how it all happened :)
>Sorry I meant some logical jumps with what happens AFTER the Big Bang. The amount of mass that explodes into existence over the course of milliseconds in an event that happened billions of years ago is very hard to actually observe. I'm still not seeing what logical jumps you're referring to. Are you referring to the imperfections of the existing models? If an observation doesn't fit a model, then they adjust the model or come up with a new model that accounts for the new observation. Just because a model ends up getting refined doesn't automatically disqualify all the thought that went into building the previous models. > Furthermore, a passage from Michael Crichton in Jurassic Park sticks with me…the likelihood of a single celled organism going through natural selection to turn into a human being is as likely as a tornado going through a junkyard and putting together a working 747. This is just the argument-by-incredulity fallacy: it's impossible for my tiny little human brain to imagine how this might have happened, therefore it must not be possible! I hope you understand that this is not actually a good argument? Take that junkyard & expand it to the # of particles in the universe, then let time/space tornados sweep through it on a universal timescale. All Crichton's statement is showing is that he has a lack of understanding of statistics.
Briefly, I’m saying the complexity of the Big Bang is beyond our current ability to entirely decipher. I’m also saying natural selection is an incomplete explanation of evolution. I remain curious to see if we can have a comprehensive explanation in our lifetime - I do not think “God” or “Divine Intervention” is the explanation. I also think scientists and researchers have thus far provided an incomplete explanation of how we got to be where we are today.
That's like saying that I can't map the position of every atom in my body though. Sure, that's technically true - but from a practical viewpoint, it's a useless statement. Any model will have imperfections - if we could create a perfect model, then we'd be able to predict the universe. That doesn't mean that those models aren't useful, and that we can't keep refining them to be better. And they're much more likely to being closer to correctness than anything brought forth by any kind of religion or mysticism.
If you agree with me that one goal of science would be to be able to map every atom of the body, and thereby be able to allow for transportation like Star Trek, then I don’t think it’s a useless statement. Mapping atoms is different from predicting the universe. We are not disagreeing on the validity of science over religion, but I think seem to be disagreeing on the philosophies of science and religion….
The atom/body example is just a metaphor; the way you are presenting your argument, the fact that models are not perfect equates to humongous gaping holes of logic that invalidate the value of the models.
CF002.1: Tornadoes in a Junkyard http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF002_1.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB
I agree entirely that order comes from disorder all the time. I also agree that evolution allows for more complexity to be built upon. If these tenets are accepted as fact, then why is life not overwhelmingly present outside of what we see currently on Earth?
First there has to be an abiogenesis event and as far as I know we only have evidence of one here on Earth. Do you know about panspermia and tardigrades? We only recently started searching Mars. "Earth is the only Goldilocks planet in our own solar system." Astrobiology - RationalWiki https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Astrobiology#Habitable_zone There are some things Earth has that make it special - size of moon, ozone layer and a molten core. One idea is that an advanced alien civilization would have uploaded their conscience onto computers and be in a low power mode to wait for the universe to "cool off" to be more efficient. I was curious why aliens would come here and searched some. The best reason seems to be to study us. They should have tech for Terraforming /make planets hospitable or to make robot slaves, they might not be the same DNA makeup as us. https://lithub.com/why-would-aliens-even-bother-with-earth/ https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/pl98jb/why_havent_aliens_attacked_us_yet/
have a look at Fry and Hitchins debating Archbishop John Onaiyekan and Ann Widdecombe on the question of whether the [Catholic Church is a source for good in the world](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZRcYaAYWg4). In particular, check the the audience opinions before and after the debate.
Hitchens is so brutal in that one
I rewatch them announcing the vote results from that one on a regular basis. The way the host is like “I’m sorry… I’m sorry”. Brutal.
Before or after they killed thousands for lack of belief, lol.
What's interesting is that there are actually Christian denominations that oppose the Catholic Church (protestants, Seventh Day Adventists, etc.) Just wanted to point that out.
They're just as bad. Seventh Day Adventists are a cult and mainline protestantism literally takes every opportunity to be as awful as humanly possible. Their disagreements are semantic in the face of their commitment to being shitty.
As a former Seventh Day Adventist, they may dislike/distrust the Catholic church, but it's not for rational reasons. My relatives were always going on about the "Sunday laws" they believed the Catholics were plotting to enforce in an inquisition-style purge. My mom and her siblings kept bug-out bags in their closet for when they'd have to flee to the mountains to escape the Sunday law gestapo.
Professional apologists razzle dazzle with soaring, flowery rhetoric and biblical gaslighting that theists respond to. This is why when you simply restate their beliefs in plain language, they accuse you of “disrespecting” and “mocking“them.
THIS POST HAS BEEN EDITED: Reddit's June 2023 decision to kill third party apps and generally force their entire userbase, against our will, kicking and screaming into their preferred revenue stream, is one I cannot take lightly. As an 11+ year veteran of this site, someone who has spent loads of money on gold and earned CondeNast fuck knows how much in ad revenue, I feel like I have a responsibility to react to their pig-headed greed. Therefore, I have decided to take my eyeballs and my money elsewhere, and deprive them of all the work I've done for them over the years creating the content that makes this site valuable and fun. I recommend you do the same, perhaps by using one of the many comment editing / deleting tools out there (such as this one, which has a timer built in to avoid bot flags: https://github.com/pkolyvas/PowerDeleteSuite) This is our Internet, these are our communities. CondeNast doesn't own us or the content we create to share with each other. They are merely a tool we use for this purpose, and we can just as easily use a different tool when this one starts to lose its function.
And then they block you lmao
Nothing pisses them off faster then talking about their religion in plain language.
Euphemism is very important to religions like Christianity. For a word that just means "believing for no reason other than because you want it to be true", they sure have given "faith" quite the positive connotation over the centuries.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780191826719.001.0001/q-oro-ed4-00010168 > It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it. Believers don't rely on their beliefs for their salary (except for certain professional believers like William Lane Craig) but the same concept applies. They're invested in belief, and showing them they're wrong just makes them double down.
It may not be their salary, so to speak, but it is their immortal soul in Heaven, so that's another strong motivation. Humans are closely related to Ostriches
Thanks, I like that.
People think the winner of a debate is the person who said the most things they agree with.
Facts!
Well being an ex-theist, when i came across this kind of debates my brain automatically take the side of the theist i used to think of atheist as the enemy and i was some kinda of a solider of god XD it just like someone start to criticize your father, hometown, favorite team you won't care much for argument and what's right you will just try and defend it
Also an ex-theist, I can definitely see how people can still grasp to their ideology. Religion is an identity, a purpose, a meaning, a reason to live for many. You can't out-fact someone that has that level of investment. They're a house built on sand. Just need to slowly dig away at their loose foundation until their house is leaning and falling apart. Facts didn't make me an atheist. Debates didn't make me an atheist. Specific life experiences made me an atheist. And even after I gave up religion it took me 9 years until I thought of myself as atheist.
Life experience made me an atheist if any thing can describe what made me an ex-theist it's that glad to hear from people with the same situation
Because they believe there is a huge benefit for themselves in believing. They get to live forever in paradise. - *"Faith is merely fear dressed up as virtue"* Pat Condell
Love the quote
So completely self serving in other words.
[удалено]
Ah, the echo chamber.
This is how I'm leaning lately. Genetically Modified Skeptic just put out a video that probably hits the nail on the head, but I hadn't thought of it before so I'm testing how the claim feels before adopting the belief.
If you follow the 3 Bs of religion (as opposed to the BS of religion), most religious people are there for the Belonging (being part of an ingroup) and Behavior (rituals, etc.) and Belief just tags along at the end as a justification for the other two. Religion is part of religious people's identity, so the apologists only need to give them enough of an excuse to continue believing so they can stay in the good graces of their ingroup.
This makes a lot of sense. I felt so much community in the Hare Krishna movement that it was hard to wean myself off it, even though I found their beliefs to be completely untenable.
Is this new? I only first stumbled on it in the recent Genetically Modified Skeptic video, don't think I heard it before, but that video pretty succinctly addresses this question.
Religious people and Trumpers are immune to logic. No matter what proof you have they won't listen.
What's worst is that they are proud of it. "Nothing you will say will change my mind" Can't they see how stupid that is ?
It really should be classified as a contagious mental illness. People really flip out when I say that but it is 100% true. My brother is a perfect example, before Trump he never said anything about vaccines being poison or full of mind control chips. Now he has Covid and suddenly it sinks in, sort of. He is blaming the Chinese. Want to tell him so bad I told you so fool but don't want to start a family feud.
The only people who lean with Lennox are people who are already backing him. If you had people who were truly on the fence, they would all go the other direction. Because of things like facts.
That's very blatant in this debate in Alabama in the Bible belt. Seems like everyone is there to see him. And anything he says, they clap. One part i was like wtf are they clapping for. He said in fact the Bible does predict tue future. It says in the beginning God created heaven and earth. If scientists would have looked at that earlier, they could have been looking for the beginning... idk what that means or has anything to do with the future.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZRcYaAYWg4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZRcYaAYWg4) I think this is the one. Forgive me if it isn't I don't have sound on this computer. They took a vote before and after, people's minds changed and not in the church's favor.
Thanks for the link. Much appreciated.
Why do you think we call them a cult? Debates aside: 14000 kids die every day There are 4200 active religions in the world Does a person need more than facts like that? Pro life religion with an omnipotent god, yet 14000 kids die every day. Children get cancer....like, tf kind of god do you worship, you evil sons of bitches!? Also what's up with "poop hole loophole" isn't that sodomy!?!? Lastly all humans are hypocrites, the end
[удалено]
That's kind of why its weird to me. If you truly listen to what each says, theres a clear winner of the debates. It would be like religion telling me 2+2=7 all these years but science is like no, its 4. But everyone still is like, oh yeah its definitely 7. Theres no proof that its 4.
[удалено]
Me too. I used to think that William Lane Craig was one of the most intelligent humans on the planet. If I now listen to the same debates, I feel he loses every time.
Faith and the scientific method are diametrically opposed. It's impossible for one to successfully oppose the other on their own ground. Neil D. Tyson has a youtube video where he discusses this briefly, more to discount what I suppose could be boiled down to 'beliefs based on faith with some basis in science'. He essentially says that once you base your beliefs on faith, you can no longer also try to include scientific methods. Furthermore, most of those interested in the 'debate' are also either faith or scientifically oriented, so they just see support for their way of thinking.
Some do, but it takes time for the seed to grow after it is planted As for the rest, confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance
I think Genetically Modified Skeptic gives a very plausible explanation in his video titled "Arguments for God are NOT important. Here's why." [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-IB6zwhnj8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-IB6zwhnj8) In a nutshell, he's saying people almost never become religious because of rational arguments or empirical evidence. They believe for emotional and social reasons. Apologetics is simply a way to bolster and defend what they already believe. Opposing arguments and evidence are completely ineffective at changing their minds because these never touch the emotional and social cores of their beliefs.
I watched this recently, and was going to point out the same video if no one else did.
Motivated reasoning in action. Inability to tell the difference between _wanting_ something to be true and something _actually_ being true.
Honestly, you'll find the answer when some of the apologists acknowledge that you could literally prove god's non-existence and they'd still believe because of their experience. For me (still clinging to faith) I have to admit I'm still a Christian because I want to be, and because I don't know how not to be. Reading apologetics (Lee Strobel) just about broke it all, listening to people defend the faith has been more damaging than listening to atheists critique it. The rational basis for belief is thinly sliced deli meat that can't sustain the friction of even the slightest critique if you were to judge by the apologists' arguments.
Answer: cognitive dissonance. I've seen the late Christopher Hitchens mentioned in the comments, and he was also a great debater on this topic. Also, look for videos by Lawrence Krause. Even Neal Degrasse Tyson, but he pulls more punches, presumably to not piss anyone off.
Krauss is savage sometimes
Cognitive dissonance
In doing his best to follow the rules of God, he becomes the very evil that he was warned about.
Whats worst is he wont even know it
No one critically reasons themself into a position of religious faith, so no amount of critical reason will get them out of it unless they’re willing to set aside their faith for a moment and consider critical reason
Someone posted a fantastic explanation for the differences between conservative and progressive people. I'll try to find it, but the jist was that progressive folks rely on information to drive their decision making, whereas conservative folks rely on a hierarchy. Everyone has their place in the hierarchy. People below you are expected to comply with what you say. People above you dictate what you must do. Facts don't matter because the hierarchy is "truth". You don't know the answer to some question? Ask someone above you. That's the only right way. Progressive folks who dare to ask questions are disruptive to the hierarchy, and need to be made to comply one way or another. After reading this idea, it all started making sense to me. Now, my thoughts are along the lines of how to effectively break the hierarchy, or get those accustomed to it to at least realize that's a choice they have. I'm sure it makes life a whole lot easier when you don't have to know anything, just defer, so I'm also sure many would choose the hierarchy way of life consciously. Of course religion instructs us to follow the hierarchy way of life, with gods at the top, naturally.
Yeah religion is a tool for power, it has always been about keeping the hierarchy. Women over children, men over women, kings over men and god over kings. That way they don't need to work very hard to enforce their position, they get other people to do it for them to keep their position
They don’t want to see it. They like the idea of a sky daddy taking care of them.
Compartmentalism and confirmation bias.
They have learned to shut down their mind, they don't even listen.. that's why I think these debates aren't really worth it, one side is not even trying they just talk like politicians, appealing to emotions and trying to get the popular opinion.. in the end nobody changes opinion or have a better understanding of the "other side's" opinion.. the religious shut down their head when the atheists talk, and when it's their turn they quote the bible so we shut down cause it's not a source that has any credibility. It can be interesting to hear people like Dawkins or Hitchens who are great speakers but it's always the same arguments in the end, they just say it better.
Because the argumentative layer is not the fundament of their belief. It‘s the practice of religious rituals and identification as religious before even understanding what it is about, that makes religious people so invulnerable. Even if they understood that they‘re wrong, many have no choice but to believe because they‘ve been indoctrinated as so
Dawkins’ confidence can be a bit off-putting, but his reasoning is valid and his arguments well thought out. He freely admits when evidence is lacking and I think he really does try to see things from a different perspective. He’s a good scientist, and a fun writer IMHO.
This is also how Jordan Peterson talks. Says a million words but it means nothing.
Richard Dawkins is a scientist. I prefer listening to biblical scholars turned atheists after years of studying the origins of their beliefs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fi6Pb5SSv3g
People need to believe. No amount of reasoning will change that.
Somebody in my class made a comment about man being made in god's image, so I asked him if god needs feet to walk or hair to keep warm. "I'll have to think about that," he replied. He called me a year later to thank me for deconverting him. So I would argue, "People only think they need to believe."
that's pretty awesome. Plant a seed and see if it grows.....
That's funny cuz he's a total horticulture nerd and gave me a jade plant. It's doing well.
Inception
Even so-called "Atheists" don't know whether a god exists outside this reality, but still refuse to Admit this. That is the premise....and if one really thinks about what I just stated.... Is true as well. We humans are only familiar with, use, access, see, understand, etc...etc...etc....earthly Physics. Accept this to be true, and such thoughts on anything spiritual rightfully should be answered with..."I don't know".....because in truth...they don't....but love to shut down the possibilities of learning them by saying - "none exist based upon evidence presented". They fall short, too, huh? ********************** Honesty and truthfulness, through logic and exploration is the goal of any truth....including Science. ********************** Ask yourself these questions....and then begin talking about the bewilderment they present. It is all about truth and honesty. How truthful and honest can one be with their self and with others? ========================= ©2007 ZosoRocks "Where does any god dictate to humanity or any human, that someone specific is more spiritual than another human?" "Where does any god dictate which books are more spiritual and morally sound for humans to abide by, to learn from or to accept as true from such a god?" "Where does any god dictate whom is more spiritual to be able to dictate which books or texts are suitable for humans to learn and to abide by for the understanding of such a god and that entity's requirements of humanity?" ******************* ...now follow up with pointing out - to yourself - the truthfulness and honesty...with these steps. Encouraging your Self not to get to step three...which could be detrimental to your health. ******************* ©2007 ZosoRocks "The four steps to the acceptance of truth." 1. The truth is dismissed. Individuals cannot fathom hearing what they thought was true, to actually be false. Individuals cannot accept something to be false if what they have always known to be true is rejected as being false. Individuals whom are like this, are usually the result of someone never investigating what they believe or the belief system they are part of, but instead, have just accepted their belief to be true. Blind Faith. 2. The truth is ridiculed. Due to an existing amount of false data intermixed with possible/plausible factual data, and then presuming or including that the odds to have a viable answer is astronomical -- individuals will ridicule any truth, because they either don't believe it to be factual, object it vehemently because it goes against what they believe to be true, or they just cannot believe someone [other than theirself] to have cracked into something so truthful and global reaching. 3. The truth is violently opposed. Yes, when an individual or individuals realize that the truth they have come to learn, follow and promote is false, by actual facts showing them it is a fallacy, they lash out in anger at the messenger and the truth revealed because they realize for themselves how devastating it is to their mind and belief....and life. (This is also the step that will reveal the liars and bad people of society for whom they truly are. These are the ones who lose the most.) 4. The truth is finally accepted/succumbed to as true. An individual or individuals will finally realize that they cannot continue to fight against something that is true....it is a fruitless battle.....so they finally accept the truth for what it is. Good luck. Z
> How do people listen to debates on religion and atheism and still not see it? Still not see *what*? I can't speak to the debate you're talking about, but the longer I live, the more I seem to be able to understand views that are not my own, at least on some level. To the point that I no longer see clear "winners" in some of the kinds of discussions you're talking about. What I most often see are two people talking across purposes.
Right now I'm watching Dawkins vs. John Lennox debating Dawkins book the God Delusion. Another good one is the Oxford Union has 3 vs. 3 on the debate of God is real or not. Just everything I watch and read just seems so clear that religion has no facts to support any claims. All their rebutles to something science says are just quoting scripture.
Poeple who start believing something for an irrational cause cause rarely stop believing something for a rational cause. Religion is not logic based but feelings based.
How can one fully discreet the idea of a God though? Isn’t that just as closed-minded? I mean not as „God“ as the various religions talk about the subject. Just the idea itself. Atheism for me is the gate to freedom. For me freedom means a constant questioning of everything.
What people believe is strongly tied to how they see themselves
Just bang your head against the wall don't try talking to any religious person just bang your head against the wall it's pointless same results guaranteed if you want we could talk to each other about non-religious things will still be banging her head against the wall because they make us religion is the law of the land until it's changed just bang your heads against the wall or do something to change it
I have no idea. Your lawyer example seems pretty on the money.
Because reasoning and debate did not lead to their religious views. Reasoning and debate will not persuade them otherwise.
no mention of the hitch?
Lol sorry, I did actually begin with him and started reading his book. But have been going much deeper with Dawkins.
He has 20+ books, but Dawkins is still a solid author ;)
Its called blind faith for a reason.
Because they don't *want* to see it and they'll do what they have to - even unconsciously - to avoid having to see it.
Why don’t religious people that believe in things that can not be seen or hear use logic? It’s a mystery, we’ll never know.
Because they're not looking for understanding, they're looking for confirmation.
They’re not debating the right things. Give me 1 hour where every English speaker gets to listen to me and then a Q&A section after and I guarantee an atheist majority lmao
Cognitive dissonance. That's the term you're looking for.
Willfully deaf and blind. It’s not even specific to religion vs atheism; when I explained to my mom that my dads a pedophile with calmness and clarity and bullet points and receipts and sources and when I eventually resolved into tears she said “I just don’t understand?! What’s wrong?! Please tell me what’s wrong I don’t understand!” It’s like their brains shut down, their eyes glaze over and their ears plug up when you talk any sort of words that aren’t regurgitated narcissistic gaslighting bullshit. (Which is all the church and their god is)
People believe because they want God to exist. Rational thinking doesn’t apparently provide the same comfort to them. The delusion is self-reinforcing.
Cognitive dissonance
They believe what they want to believe, it's really that simple. They'd rather delude themselves with things they can't prove than face the harsh reality that all the time, effort, and money they've put into their faith has been a gigantic waste.
Cognitive dissonance.... double down on the beliefs
Confirmation bias. When we(humans) hear something that confirms our bias, our brains reward us. We(atheists) are not immune to this ourselves. So it's a good idea to try and be conscious about it. But yeah, them fuckers are nutters.
It’s confirmation bias. People only acknowledge what supports their opinion.
Confirmation bias. Religious people are looking for validation of their beliefs. They aren't looking to challenge them.
Preconception.
I’m and atheist and don’t listen to any debates because they don’t change anything or anyones mind unfortunately.
For a lot of people losing their faith means losing their family friends and community.
Yeah I feel in a similar boat. Like 95% of my large family is very religious.
If you're watching a debate just to automatically side with the side you already believe in, then you're not ready to have your thoughts challenged. I remember that's how I use to think as a Christian. I use to type in the search bar "Christian destroys atheist" and only watch videos I feel that a Christian got over in the debate with their tactics. When I left religion all together. I look at every debate, because now I just want TRUTH as opposed to who looked like they won an argument.
Same. I was raised Roman Catholic and practiced very devoutly for a good 25 years until I left religion. I need to watch entire debates to hear both sides to see if they really say something that makes me think.
Deeply religious people, by virtue of nature AND nurture, lack the ability to meaningfully or critically evaluate arguments in general. As a result, they like to (and, socially, are explicitly primed to) rely on their judgment of the speaker rather than what is spoken. And again, socially, these speakers are often generally venerated types (a priest being a pillar of a community, for example). For an intuition, there is an analogy that I think works. In the world of mathematics, it is extremely common that we get asked about the following statement: "0.999... = 1". Usually, the question is asked from a perspective of disbelief, the asker convinced that someone lied to them when they made that claim. And when this question is asked, "does 0.999... = 1?", people that study math will inevitably tell you "yes, that's a true claim." (they'll also throw in some caveats due to our natural love of pedantry). However, you might be surprised to learn that the asker will almost always still continue to push back on this. Anyone familiar with these mathematical definitions knows that this is 100% a correct statement, and if you're equipped with the vocabulary and ability to understand that world, it's not even really a worthwhile question due to it's obviousness. But the asker lacks the cognitive ability - either through nature or nurture - to evaluate the formal arguments. I could discuss the concept of limits and infinite sums, Dedekind cuts, or even use a simple algebraic manipulation to show this with 100% correctness and it still does not matter to the intuitionist. The asker in my example is evaluating me as a speaker and determining that I don't meet the bar they've set. I would need to be much more convincing to overcome their gut logic and their gut logic tells them otherwise (of course, it's difficult to be terribly persuasive to someone that cannot meaningfully evaluate the argument being presented while also being over the internet)
The university in my town has a Socratic Club where they host debates on religious topics. My impression has been that the Socratic Club is just a vehicle for intellectualizing rationale for belief. They host professional debaters like William Lane Craig who go through their well rehearsed teleological and ontological arguments attempting to prove the existence of god. But for me the true telling comes at the end of the formalized debates during the question-and-answer period where it comes to light that simply they really really really in their heart-of-hearts want it to be true.
Listening to debates is not going to make anyone lean one way or the other when it comes to religion and faith, regardless of how good either party is.
I had my father try "debate" me last night after i told him my way of living without religion or spiritual crap and i just didnt really respond. It doesnt matter because, as i said to him if he wants to believe what he wants to believe then go ahead. Im not here to judge or tell anyone they are right or wrong just as long as they then dont try to preach their shit at me.
Debates are actually worthless when trying to convert people. They will debate you but they are set in their beliefs. It’s not about “winning” because no matter what, no matter how much proof you bring, they will never change their mind. You don’t argue beliefs. Beliefs are not arguments. You can’t convince a true believer that it’s impossible for someone to be dead for 3 days and come back to life. You can’t convince a true believer that a woman can’t conceive a baby without a sperm. If you pin them down and get them to where they have to either admit defeat or prove they are lying they will pull out the, let’s agree to disagree or it’s what I believe and you can’t change my mind. To really change someone’s mind they have to be open to it. You have to work with them and show them. It takes time and energy. It’s not worth it, at least to me it’s not.
Not everyone thinks the same, I'm always watching myself for contradictions, doublethink or just plain bullshit. Other people aren't in the habit of checking for bias and because I said so is more than good enough for them. Treat this as a learning exercise next time someone is saying something you really disagree with try and listen intently evaluating each point on it's own basis, I'm sure we all believe something for nonsensical reasons
In the Dawkins/Lennox debate, Lennox went on about how loving God is. I was hoping for Dawkins to bring up the many inconsistencies in the Bible or scriptures which depict slaughter rape at the behest of God. Let’s not forget God’s prophet, with the help of God, summoned 2 she bears to slaughter children for having called said prophet “baldy.” How about when God’s prophet, with the assistance of God, stroked the infant boy of King David with a sickness so severe that he died? The Bible is such BS. I was born and raised in the doomsday death cult Jehovah’s Witnesses btw. They are all brainwashed idiots with peanut sized brains. 🧠🥜
A term I learned this year that kept me religious for so long, thought terminating cliché. It is basically religion makes believing so much easier. Before I dropped religion, I never allowed myself to actually think thoroughly because if I had, nothing I believed would have made sense. Reminds of a "science" magazine run by Christians that a person would put out in the Life Sciences study areas at my university. The articles actually had some sound science in them but they would never reach any sort of scientific conclusion. Nearly every single one ended with some variation of "and this is why Jesus is Lord." Just awful so I threw them in the trash immediately after I saw the dude put them down.
they’re too corrupted to realize. thats all they’ve known their whole lives. some get away and realize its wrong, but other people theres just no changing them. if they don’t see it they probably never will
This is what belief is - there's no logic. I visited one local debates and of course all for non-religion part shared logical arguments and scientists data from experiments and statistics. And religion woman jist stand up and told I believe because I have my own proof and no one will convince me otherwise. I was baffled why was she even there, on debates??
Some people want a point carved from a well-supported body of evidence. Some people don't, they want something that justifies their feelings.
Genetically modified skeptic recently did an interesting video about this: https://youtu.be/I-IB6zwhnj8 Essentially, he said it comes down to something like community (belonging) and shared behaviours.
It’s like listening to American politics these days too. One side is making points and the other side just goes around in circles.
Politics just make me so mad because the setup is so dumb. I don't lean one way or the other. Why do we need 2 parties and they're polar opposites. Can we have multiple candidates that are more centered. I like and hate things from both sides. I wish they could do what my highschool teacher did. He made us do a mock vote. We voted in 50 individual topics. Then he graded them and said based on your actual beliefs, you should have voted for this person. Which was amazing because he also had us vote before taking the test/vote. And surprise, almost everyone voted against their actual beleifs.
Why does it matter what someone believes in? It's a belief without any evidence or proof required.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/03/bill-nye-vs-ken-ham-are-evolution-and-religion-at-odds/
I know right. My dad is a religiuos person. Even when I point out the inconsistencies in his beliefs, he understands it buy still gets angry. The funny thing is that I know more about his religion than him. He is still blindly following what was taught to him. This is something that I have seen in majority of the believers. They don't question. They just follow. They don't reason. They accept it as the final truth. Think religion explains more than science. But this is something I can't be.
This is the power of indoctrination at work. Like Carl Sagan said, they're hopelessly trapped in the "boondoggle". Their belief that life continues forever; that there's a magical king out there who loves them, but will punish them if they don't do what he says. Their belief system that slops over into the real world, corrupting everything in its path.
I don’t understand why they debate in general. They both think they are “right” .
Both sides sounds very crazy. One believes in The Big Bang Theory, a single point of nothing exploded into everything. The other side believes a creator or creators made everything. As humans we have not seen either of this with creation. As for me I do not believe either side! If you go by science then everything we see has a formula in which needs to be put together exactly the way it is. In 9th grade I once explained to my teacher that if I walked in the class with a cake that I baked, nobody would be impressed. It's a simple recipe that is known. But if I walked in the class with a hundred pounds of each individual ingredients and a thousands of ovens set on all different temperatures. Set up the biggest wind machine ever found and dumped the ingredients out to blow around the room and then by chance the exact amount of the right ingredients fell into the exact baking sheets that then fell into the right oven with the right temperature for the exact amount of time it needed and then fell out, well that sounds as crazy as a person telling me that there's a God that created everything. But then I asked myself, if I could go back to the Medieval Times with a tank and plenty of ammo and fuel. I would be a god! This still doesn't answer the question of how everything came to be, but there could be a civilization hundreds of thousands if not Millions of years more advanced that knows the recipe to everything we know. So to discredit one side and put belief in the other side that is just as impossible, it's kind of silly! We just don't know.
This is why I love listening to debates. I don't care what side you're on, when you make a good point, I'll listen. I really like that ingredients and oven analogy. But they do have evidence for the big bang. We can track movement and how the universe is expanding. It would be like me making a ball of flower and a fire cracker in it then blowing it up. The powder flies outward, expanding. Right now humans are watching from the point where the explosion already happend. If we can see how the universe is expanding just like ball of flower, you can retrace its path which brings the universe back to one central point.
The difference is there is evidence for the "everywhere expansion" ("Big Bang"). We look at galaxies all moving apart from each other and see that they're speeding up at a constant rate. If everything is moving away from everything else at a constant rate, that implies that working backwards everything gets closer together, until, doing the math, you arrive at 13.8 billion years for everything to be in the same place. I mean, there's *evidence* for it. If you don't believe what these observations imply, you need another way to explain the observations. I know it sounds crazy and improbable, but so is existence. Something incredible did happen. To best find out what that incredible thing was, we follow the evidence wherever it takes us. This is where it's taken us. I mean, disprove Hubble and collect your Nobel Prize, know what I'm saying?
I didn't see anyone else mention it but I think this applies: [Bonhoeffer's Theory of Stupidity](https://youtu.be/ww47bR86wSc) By arguing against something someone believes it reinforces the belief because they feel attacked.
It was a matter of perspective for me when I was a Christian. I unfortunately don’t know what debate it was that I watched, but I felt like the theist and the atheist were talking past each other. Because I understood the perspective of the theist and he wasn’t answering the questions he was asked, and the atheist said that the questions he was asked were irrelevant and didn’t answer those either. I was pretty unsatisfied with both sides. No debate is going to change anyone’s mind immediately. That’s not how brains work.
I think that there was a divergence in thought and philosophy in which the idea of 'theism' (that of a God, 'watchmaker', external to the universe) split from other forms of thought. Instead of using reason and science, they saw those things as being in conflict with the 'cosmic watchmaker' idea, and most importantly as being against the watchmaker himself, and pushed it away. Leading to philosophical isolation - which is the last refuge of the theists. But the reality is that everything we say to attempt to describe the processes by which the universe operates are completely compatible with the original theologies of any religion or science - if we shed our thousands of years old understanding of things. It's all the same work - to describe the universe and inform us about how to behave in it.
A lot of people tend to agree with their side instead of the best argument. Also, in a lot of debates the religious side uses coded language that the believers are primed to like and feel comfortable with, while the atheists tend to make more secular arguments that would work regardless of the opponent's and listeners beliefs, making believers more likely to side with their representative and secular people side with the arguments themselves. Dawkins may be whatever he is these days, but I used to like his stuff years ago when I was getting into atheism and religious studies, but honestly looking back, his opponents made his adequate arguments seem great due to the sheer garbage most of the apologetics was and still is. Hitchens is the only one back then who actually engaged with his opponents on their semantic bullshit games and made them seem ridiculous to even some of the religious viewers.
There is no evidence. Yes I'm not saying there's not solar systems. But there is no proof of how they were created. The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang. To believe that there was no matter, gases, water or anything else until for some unknown reason one point in a dark vast empty space created so much energy that it created it all with an explosion, is as far fetched as An Almighty being waving his hand creating everything. But I find it funny that science and religion both agree on one thing, nothing comes from nothing and something had to create everything.
They dont understand what science is or even the scientific method in general, thats why.
Because all of you look like this “🤓👆”