Moderated: Why I have a tough time talking to believers.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Denver

Actually, it can be fun to work with people of different belief systems, and even be friends with them, and respect their intelligence and their history and their family and societal differences. It's less fun, at least to me, to see them as silly, because of those.

I am friends with people who have different belief systems, but none of them believe in gods.

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by Denver

Actually, it can be fun to work with people of different belief systems, and even be friends with them, and respect their intelligence and their history and their family and societal differences. It's less fun, at least to me, to see them as silly, because of those.

The believers will just deflect the conversation away from their own personal pixies. Waste of time. And I don't have any believer friends.

[Denver]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

The believers will just deflect the conversation away from their own personal pixies. Waste of time. And I don't have any believer friends.

That's quite a generalized assumption to make about all people who would say they have a belief in a god, somewhere within their current world view. Do you think that assumption is why you have such a tough time with such people? I suppose it could also be that every believer you have encountered has acted that way when you tried my suggestion, so I suppose I can't blame you. Then again, in my experience, it has not always been the case.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Denver

That's quite a generalized assumption to make about all people who would say they have a belief in a god, somewhere within their current world view. Do you think that assumption is why you have such a touch time with such people? I suppose it could also be that every believer you have encountered has acted that way when you tried my suggestion, so I suppose I can't blame you. Then again, in my experience, it has not always been the case.

I don't have that experience. I've lived in Belgium for thirty five years and the only time that I hear the word god is at a wedding or a funeral. Religion plays no part in daily life around here.

[Denver]

Originally Posted by dafydd

I don't have that experience. I've lived in Belgium for thirty five years and the only time that I hear the word god is at a wedding or a funeral. Religion plays no part in daily life around here.

That is close to my experience as well, even though I know plenty believers. The other area I tend to hear unsolicited proclamations about god is from our politicians.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Denver

That is close to my experience as well, even though I know plenty believers. The other area I tend to hear unsolicited proclamations about god is from our politicians.

European politicians seldom go around thanking god during their speeches. They would have to thank a whole list of gods. American politicians seem to think that god is a white middle class male who emigrated to the USA with the Pilgrim Fathers.

[deaman]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

What do you have on hand, to convince me, the natural world is all there is ? once you accomplish that, i will deconvert.......

What do you have on hand to convince anyone that there is something else besides the natural world?

[Denver]

Originally Posted by dafydd

European politicians seldom go around thanking god during their speeches. They would have to thank a whole list of gods. American politicians seem to think that god is a white middle class male who emigrated to the USA with the Pilgrim Fathers.

LOL you've got that right. Actually, unlike the everyday believers in the public, at least those in my experience, many of our politicians seem to use god-talk to manipulate an electorate, often to contrast themselves to those politicians who don't. God-talk can imply in the minds of many a dedication to morals and tradition, without actually talking about those things. Any advantage they can get (which I suspect is true of most politicians, US or not) they take.

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by Denver

That's quite a generalized assumption to make about all people who would say they have a belief in a god, somewhere within their current world view. Do you think that assumption is why you have such a tough time with such people? I suppose it could also be that every believer you have encountered has acted that way when you tried my suggestion, so I suppose I can't blame you. Then again, in my experience, it has not always been the case.

Most believers aren't worth bothering over. They're bots, yearnings to be drones.

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by dafydd

I don't have that experience. I've lived in Belgium for thirty five years and the only time that I hear the word god is at a wedding or a funeral. Religion plays no part in daily life around here.

On the other paw, people around here might kill you if you're the wrong religion.

[Denver]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

Most believers aren't worth bothering over. They're bots, yearnings to be drones.

Thanks. That does answer my question.

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by dafydd

And different religions believe in different races of fairies.

its our friend that has a hard time with us, theists. So i have given him a hint how he can convince me his case is more plausible than theism.

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

As daffyd says, "Whatcha got?"

Thats what YOU have to show me. Whatcha got ??

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by Irony

We are under no obligation to disprove all of your fantasies. .

Thats NOT what i asked for.

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by godless dave

There's no evidence that anything besides the natural world exists. So there you go.

Again, thats not what i asked for. What evidence do you have that the natural world is all there is ? Why does it need a mind to write a book, or a computer code, but not to create the information stored in DNA ??!!

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by John Jones

Skepticism, critical thinking skills, the scientific discipline, and a lack of empirical evidence pointing elsewhere.

I'm predicting that's not enough.

Indeed, You have NOT answered my question. Nobody did so far. Nothing else can be expected, really.......

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

Thats what YOU have to show me. Whatcha got ??

I've got the real world, with no pixies. You got something different?

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

Again, thats not what i asked for. What evidence do you have that the natural world is all there is ? Why does it need a mind to write a book, or a computer code, but not to create the information stored in DNA ??!!

You have proof of anything other than the natural world, trot it out.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

Thats what YOU have to show me. Whatcha got ??

Reality.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

What evidence do you have that the natural world is all there is ?

What evidence do you have that would prove the contrary?

[Mudcat]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

Thats what YOU have to show me. Whatcha got ??

That's not how the burden of proof works. You want to make a positive claim that something does exist, you must put forth the evidence that it does.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

Why does it need a mind to write a book, or a computer code, but not to create the information stored in DNA ??!!

That DNA contains the information needed to create the mind that writes the book or the computer code. If some mind created that information, then you would have to determine where THAT information came from, and the mind needed to create it, and the information needed to create THAT mind.

It gets to be a lot of trouble.

Also, the information stored in DNA is quite different from the information stored in a book. Imagine a book in which all the text is stored on every page, but with most of the words blotted out, leaving only the words relevant to that page.

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

That DNA contains the information needed to create the mind that writes the book or the computer code. If some mind created that information, then you would have to determine where THAT information came from, and the mind needed to create it, and the information needed to create THAT mind.

It gets to be a lot of trouble.

Also, the information stored in DNA is quite different from the information stored in a book. Imagine a book in which all the text is stored on every page, but with most of the words blotted out, leaving only the words relevant to that page.

DNA is a string of chemicals. No mind needed. No god needed.

[Dogdoctor]

Religion provides structure in peoples lives. It gives them comfort in troubled times and something to fall back on when the chips are down. Beleif in faries doesn't provide that.

[Irony]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

Why does it need a mind to write a book, or a computer code, but not to create the information stored in DNA ??!!

Because unlike the simple self-replicating polymers that predated DNA, books and codes have no natural means of reproduction and mutation.

Why didn't you use a snowflake as your example of an arbitrarily complex item filled with "information"?

Edit: Also, if you are proposing a "mind" to create our ancestors, and minds require minds to make them, how do you justify making an exception in that one case?

[Irony]

Originally Posted by Dogdoctor

Religion provides structure in peoples lives. It gives them comfort in troubled times and something to fall back on when the chips are down. Beleif in faries doesn't provide that.

I imagine the fairy believers would contest that. Who are you to tell them they can't find meaning in fairies?

[Good Lt]

Originally Posted by Dogdoctor

Religion provides structure in peoples lives. It gives them comfort in troubled times and something to fall back on when the chips are down. Beleif in faries doesn't provide that.

Not for you, perhaps. Did you ask any of them? Did you tell them they're wrong?

[Good Lt]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

Thats what YOU have to show me. Whatcha got ??

You are not called upon to know or prove a negative.

The person making the claim has the burden of proof. The people asking for evidence do not have to prove that something that hasn't been proven to exist doesn't in fact exist.

See: Celestial teapot or the flying spaghetti monster. Prove they don't exist somewhere.

[Mudcat]

Originally Posted by Dogdoctor

Religion provides structure in peoples lives. It gives them comfort in troubled times and something to fall back on when the chips are down.

You don't need religion for that at all, so why bring it up?

[Dogdoctor]

Originally Posted by Mudcat

You don't need religion for that at all, so why bring it up?

You don't but then people who don't have religion almost entirely lack it so that's why I bring it up.

[Irony]

Originally Posted by Dogdoctor

You don't but then people who don't have religion almost entirely lack it so that's why I bring it up.

Do you realize just how offensive and colossally bigoted that statement is?

[Good Lt]

Originally Posted by Dogdoctor

You don't but then people who don't have religion almost entirely lack it so that's why I bring it up.

Lack what?

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

I don't believe there's a difference between fairy believers and god believers, I've said this more than once in this thread already I do believe. You believe in gods, fairies, pyramid power, Nibiru, all same-same GI.

Oh man... it's really hard to get this point across to you, isn't it? You just keep arguing strawmen back at me... Ok, fine... tell you what, lets try this again, from the top:



Do you believe that all believers are Fundamentalist, close-minded , obtuse ignoramuses with whom a serious intelligent discussion cannot be held? Yes or No?


(My guess, judging by your sweeping generalizations, such as the one you made on post #49, is that the answer is "Yes")

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by Irony

Obviously their are differences in believers. Some are fanatics, some are luke-warm, some are believers in name only. Some are authoritarian, some are not. But the point is that which particular supernatural belief they follow is not one of the important factors.

No. It's not about what the person believes in. It's about with how much conviction do they believe in it, and how flexible they are about their beliefs, and thus, how willing are they to subject their own belief to scrutiny in a discussion with someone who doesn't share their beliefs. A person who believes in God could very well be a Christian Fundamentalist who believes God is Jesus Christ, who was resurrected on the third day, blablabla, and who holds these beliefs with such conviction that you cannot have a normal conversation with them.... and then, there are people who believe in God but who aren't that married to the whole concept, who are more open minded and with whom a rational discussion can be held about certain matters... heck, there are even people who believe in God, but admit that their belief is irrational and that they only hold such belief because it makes them feel better.

[Astreja]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

No. It's not about what the person believes in. It's about with how much conviction do they believe in it, and how flexible they are about their beliefs, and thus, how willing are they to subject their own belief to scrutiny in a discussion with someone who doesn't share their beliefs. A person who believes in God could very well be a Christian Fundamentalist who believes God is Jesus Christ, who was resurrected on the third day, blablabla, and who holds these beliefs with such conviction that you cannot have a normal conversation with them.... and then, there are people who believe in God but who aren't that married to the whole concept, who are more open minded and with whom a rational discussion can be held about certain matters... heck, there are even people who believe in God, but admit that their belief is irrational and that they only hold such belief because it makes them feel better.

^^^ This.

I find that one can have delightful conversations with believers who take their beliefs with a grain (or pillar) of salt, whereas trying to converse with a fundamentalist of any creed is the interpersonal equivalent of running head-first at a brick wall.

[Dogdoctor]

Originally Posted by Good Lt

Lack what?

It's really simple when something bad happens they pray to god. Instead of expending effort blaming themselves and expending effort trying to understand what happened. Atheists have to search for comfort and find ways to deal with whatever maybe even post about it on some interent board.

[punshhh]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

Let's take an intelligent person, A. Conan Doyle, and let's make him believe in something silly, say the Cottingly Fairies. Now he wants to tell you that they're real and they're the greatest thing on the planet.

This is how I look at believers. There's not significant difference for me between the Cottingly Fairies and Jehovah.

Ron is right the problem is in your head not the head of the believers.

Do you really not see that your comparison between God and fairies is a straw man? Straw which you appear to use in your personal form of self flagellation.

[punshhh]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

As daffyd says, "Whatcha got?"

Originally Posted by Good Lt

To the extent that all believers in deities, fairies, unicorns, etc., by definition BELIEVE in something without evidence for it, the details are inconsequential.

All believers partake in the invisible supernatural ice cream; the differences are merely their preferred flavors and toppings.

Originally Posted by godless dave

There's no evidence that anything besides the natural world exists. So there you go.

Originally Posted by John Jones

Skepticism, critical thinking skills, the scientific discipline, and a lack of empirical evidence pointing elsewhere.

I'm predicting that's not enough.

Originally Posted by deaman

What do you have on hand to convince anyone that there is something else besides the natural world?

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

You have proof of anything other than the natural world, trot it out.

Originally Posted by Mudcat

That's not how the burden of proof works. You want to make a positive claim that something does exist, you must put forth the evidence that it does.

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

That DNA contains the information needed to create the mind that writes the book or the computer code. If some mind created that information, then you would have to determine where THAT information came from, and the mind needed to create it, and the information needed to create THAT mind.

It gets to be a lot of trouble.

Also, the information stored in DNA is quite different from the information stored in a book. Imagine a book in which all the text is stored on every page, but with most of the words blotted out, leaving only the words relevant to that page.

Originally Posted by Good Lt

You are not called upon to know or prove a negative.

The person making the claim has the burden of proof. The people asking for evidence do not have to prove that something that hasn't been proven to exist doesn't in fact exist.

See: Celestial teapot or the flying spaghetti monster. Prove they don't exist somewhere.

Oh my look at all that straw! One strike of a match and it would all go up in a puff of smoke!

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by punshhh

Do you really not see that your comparison between God and fairies is a straw man? Straw which you appear to use in your personal form of self flagellation.

No. What difference is there in believing in a sky daddy and believing in fairies?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by punshhh

Oh my look at all that straw! One strike of a match and it would all go up in a puff of smoke!

You don't appear to know the definition of straw man. Pointing out that there is no proof for the existence of invisible magic beings is not a straw man.