[Moderated] Why I have a tough time talking to believers. - Page 3

punshhh · 24th January 2013, 02:43 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

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

Morning Dafydd, do you have much snow over there?

Fairies are a fictitious concept generated in the human mind. God is in some cases a fictitious concept generated in the human mind, however in other cases it is not. In the latter case it can be a cypher for the cause of our existence, a deity for example, and numerous other things.

tsig · 24th January 2013, 02:46 AM

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Well, you started the OP by saying that that is how you envision "believers".

You never made a distinction between fairy-fanatics and other types of believers. If you do believe in that distinction, then I take back what I said but you certainly didn't make it clear. From your OP it seemed that you put them all into one single pigeonhole entitled "believers".

That's probably because they all believe.

tsig · 24th January 2013, 02:48 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

A good point. Is there a difference between believing in a sky daddy and believing that Reptilians control the world?

Nope.

punshhh · 24th January 2013, 02:49 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

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.

It doesn't matter whatever reasoning is employed to justify a conclusion that there is no God/god, we are in actual fact none the wiser. Simply, humanity is not in a position to say what is the origin of our existence, or what else exists.

Oh and I know by the way about the big bang, QM etc, again we are none the wiser.

tsig · 24th January 2013, 02:55 AM

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 ??!!

Because DNA is not a book or a computer code.

GIBHOR · 24th January 2013, 02:55 AM

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.

it seems you have a hard time to understand that i am not asking to prove a negative. I have clearly asked to present positive evidence for naturalism.

GIBHOR · 24th January 2013, 02:57 AM

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

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

Indeed, its like a HD, which stores information. You need to answer where the information stored in DNA came from.......

GIBHOR · 24th January 2013, 02:58 AM

Originally Posted by deaman

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

Its the thread starter that has a hard time with us. Its upon him to present his case for evaluation.

Mashuna · 24th January 2013, 03:02 AM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

Indeed, its like a HD, which stores information. You need to answer where the information stored in DNA came from.......

It was selected for, naturally.

Gawdzilla · 24th January 2013, 04:07 AM

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.

Really? So a delusion that is comfortable is a good delusion?

Gawdzilla · 24th January 2013, 04:09 AM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

Indeed, its like a HD, which stores information. You need to answer where the information stored in DNA came from.......

Your analogy is wildly incorrect. As I've pointed out, DNA is a group of chemicals. Do you think gasoline has some mission to power automobiles?

Gawdzilla · 24th January 2013, 04:12 AM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

it seems you have a hard time to understand that i am not asking to prove a negative. I have clearly asked to present positive evidence for naturalism.

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.......

Your burden of proof, to show that there is anything more than this.

And I don't care of you deconvert or not.

dafydd · 24th January 2013, 04:17 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

Morning Dafydd, do you have much snow over there?

Fairies are a fictitious concept generated in the human mind. God is in some cases a fictitious concept generated in the human mind, however in other cases it is not. In the latter case it can be a cypher for the cause of our existence, a deity for example, and numerous other things.

All gods are fictitious. The highlighted part is meaningless mystical mush. Why would we need a deity to cause our existence?

tsig · 24th January 2013, 04:36 AM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

Indeed, its like a HD, which stores information. You need to answer where the information stored in DNA came from.......

Information is not stored in DNA. It is not a HD.

tsig · 24th January 2013, 04:39 AM

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

Your analogy is wildly incorrect. As I've pointed out, DNA is a group of chemicals. Do you think gasoline has some mission to power automobiles?

Clearly the dinosaurs died that we might have energy and have it more abundantly.

Gawdzilla · 24th January 2013, 04:40 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

Clearly the dinosaurs died that we might have energy and have it more abundantly.

And the Sun wants to keep us warm.

P.J. Denyer · 24th January 2013, 04:40 AM

Originally Posted by Dogdoctor

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.

Sounds like a vote in favour of atheism to me. Self blame may or may not be appropriate (either way it is at least more realistic than blaming the Devil or assuming it's a punishment from God, which is another kind of self blame anyway), trying to understand what happened, trying to deal with it and seeking comfort from actual people rather than imaginary beings all seem like pretty sensible ways of dealing with 'something bad' happening.

Gawdzilla · 24th January 2013, 04:41 AM

Can we move the naturalism part to the existing advocacy thread?

tsig · 24th January 2013, 04:42 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

Morning Dafydd, do you have much snow over there?

Fairies are a fictitious concept generated in the human mind. God is in some cases a fictitious concept generated in the human mind, however in other cases it is not. In the latter case it can be a cypher for the cause of our existence, a deity for example, and numerous other things.

Why the special pleading for the god concept?

tsig · 24th January 2013, 04:45 AM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

it seems you have a hard time to understand that i am not asking to prove a negative. I have clearly asked to present positive evidence for naturalism.

Boy, that's a hard one...Oh wait, the sun came up today.

Good Lt · 24th January 2013, 04:46 AM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

it seems you have a hard time to understand that i am not asking to prove a negative. I have clearly asked to present positive evidence for naturalism.

You're being asked to provide any evidence at all that a god or gods exist. You are making a claim that an invisible skybeing exists. So prove it. Show us the evidence.

Your question, on the other hand, makes no sense. It's like asking somebody to prove that capitalism exists.

And your approach is a fallacy. Even if naturalism/capitalism/atheism/etc. didn't exist, that doesn't prove that god(s) exist. You still have to prove that with positive and verifiable evidence. You don't 'win by default' here.

Rasmus · 24th January 2013, 04:51 AM

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

What gets me, what really just makes my brain hurt is trying to figure out the disconnect, how demonstratably not crazy people can say crazy things.

How are these people "demonstrably not crazy?"

what if you look at it as "wow, that crazy person nearly managed to pass off as sane for a minute there" instead?

aggle-rithm · 24th January 2013, 04:52 AM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

Indeed, its like a HD, which stores information. You need to answer where the information stored in DNA came from.......

As I mentioned in an earlier post, it's not at all like that. To extend the computer analogy, think of a computer where every component -- the HD, the screen, the keyboard, the CPU -- has all the information needed to build a complete computer. That would be pretty cool, but it's not the way human beings design things, nor does it function in any way like a HD.

As to where the information comes from, keep in mind that it took billions of years to accumulate that information through trial and error. It was only very recently, in geological time, that the code grew robust enough to allow for multi-cellular organisms. Very inefficient use of time if there were an intelligent agent behind it.

aggle-rithm · 24th January 2013, 04:56 AM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

it seems you have a hard time to understand that i am not asking to prove a negative. I have clearly asked to present positive evidence for naturalism.

Look out the window. See that? It's nature. Want to know how it works? There are science journals available online, although I doubt they can all be read within a normal lifetime.

Does naturalism explain everything? Not yet, but there's no reason to think it won't ever be able to.

If you can produce a philosophy that explains what you see out the window better than naturalism (that is, without invoking unseen supernatural beings) then let's see it.

dafydd · 24th January 2013, 05:16 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

Why the special pleading for the god concept?

Because it's mystical.

Cainkane1 · 24th January 2013, 05:22 AM

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.

People believe what they feel comfortable with and its hard to reason with them.

punshhh · 24th January 2013, 05:50 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

All gods are fictitious. The highlighted part is meaningless mystical mush. Why would we need a deity to cause our existence?

Well, can you give an alternative explanation for our existence. As I said before I know about the big bang etc, that is not an explanation for our existence. Its an explanation of how the world we find ourselves in works, nothing more.

Now the more subtle point, do you think it is possible to think and talk about something which is not understood, or known?

punshhh · 24th January 2013, 06:00 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

Why the special pleading for the god concept?

I don't need any special pleading, logic has provided me with an infinitely large gap to fit any God/god into, if I wanted to hide it.

Anyway back to my point, some believers and non believers consider the existence of a God/god, which is not a fiction and may be the origin of our existence.

If fairies were comparable, then there would be folk believing in omnipotent non fictional fairies.

How many omnipotent non fictional fairies can you fit on the head of a pin? Has logic got the answer?

Last of the Fraggles · 24th January 2013, 07:06 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

Well, can you give an alternative explanation for our existence. As I said before I know about the big bang etc, that is not an explanation for our existence. Its an explanation of how the world we find ourselves in works, nothing more.

Now the more subtle point, do you think it is possible to think and talk about something which is not understood, or known?

Can you elaborate on specifically what you feel is explained by 'Goddidit' that isn't explained by natural explanations?

The phrase 'alternative explanation' suggests 'Goddidit' is an explanation which I take issue with.

dafydd · 24th January 2013, 07:13 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

Well, can you give an alternative explanation for our existence. As I said before I know about the big bang etc, that is not an explanation for our existence. Its an explanation of how the world we find ourselves in works, nothing more.

Why is an explanation needed?

dafydd · 24th January 2013, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

How many omnipotent non fictional fairies can you fit on the head of a pin? Has logic got the answer?

Yes. None. They don't exist.

Ron_Tomkins · 24th January 2013, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins
Well, you started the OP by saying that that is how you envision "believers".

You never made a distinction between fairy-fanatics and other types of believers. If you do believe in that distinction, then I take back what I said but you certainly didn't make it clear. From your OP it seemed that you put them all into one single pigeonhole entitled "believers".

Originally Posted by tsig

That's probably because they all believe.

But they don't all believe with the same amount of blindness and unwillingness to question their beliefs. Not all believers are unable to question their beliefs. Not all believers are close minded obtuse brain washed people. That's my point: That the OP is putting them all into one single pigeonhole.

The Norseman · 24th January 2013, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

Fairies are a fictitious concept generated in the human mind. God is in some cases a fictitious concept generated in the human mind, however in other cases it is not. In the latter case it can be a cypher for the cause of our existence, a deity for example, and numerous other things.

So what it seems to me you're saying is that a cypher for the cause of our existence (which apparently has quite a variable definition so therefore no one outside of your head can possibly be aware of what definition it is you're using) is not a fictitious concept?

If it's fact, then it can explained easily and briefly to mystic and non-mystic alike, right? Or will you be redefining what 'fact' means as well?

Originally Posted by punshhh

Well, can you give an alternative explanation for our existence. As I said before I know about the big bang etc, that is not an explanation for our existence. Its an explanation of how the world we find ourselves in works, nothing more.

Sounds to me like you're wanting to know why you're here on Earth in the first place? Why do you think the answers are found in mysticism? Why not read the Good Book; it has all the answers you need.

Quote:

Now the more subtle point, do you think it is possible to think and talk about something which is not understood, or known?

Not meaningfully, no.

Originally Posted by punshhh

I don't need any special pleading, logic has provided me with an infinitely large gap to fit any God/god into, if I wanted to hide it.

Then it shouldn't take you long to concisely and accurately define what this infinitely large gap is. Using logic, of course.

Quote:

Anyway back to my point, some believers and non believers consider the existence of a God/god, which is not a fiction and may be the origin of our existence.

...some non-believers consider the existence of a God/god...? LOL

Please stop redefining or using words that have commonly understood meanings to try and make your 'point'.

Quote:

If fairies were comparable, then there would be folk believing in omnipotent non fictional fairies.

Apparently, there are quite a few. If you'd pretend for a moment you were unbiased, you'd see that.

The Norseman · 24th January 2013, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

But they don't all believe with the same amount of blindness and unwillingness to question their beliefs. Not all believers are unable to question their beliefs. Not all believers are close minded obtuse brain washed people. That's my point: That the OP is putting them all into one single pigeonhole.

To the OP apparently those distinguishing characteristics don't seem to matter much. Putting all 'believers [in x]' in the one, single category is valid even if it offends your sensibilities.

dafydd · 24th January 2013, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by The Norseman

To the OP apparently those distinguishing characteristics don't seem to matter much. Putting all 'believers [in x]' in the one, single category is valid even if it offends your sensibilities.

True. Believing in fictional beings is believing in fictional beings.

punshhh · 24th January 2013, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

Can you elaborate on specifically what you feel is explained by 'Goddidit' that isn't explained by natural explanations?

My position is that it is not irrational to consider a god.

Quote:

The phrase 'alternative explanation' suggests 'Goddidit' is an explanation which I take issue with.

I was addressing you. Can you be more specific.

punshhh · 24th January 2013, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Why is an explanation needed?

It would help if you were going to say that to consider the existence of a god is mistaken or irrational.

punshhh · 24th January 2013, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Yes. None. They don't exist.

How do you know? Does logic tell you?

Last of the Fraggles · 24th January 2013, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

My position is that it is not irrational to consider a god.

I was addressing you. Can you be more specific.

You stated that natural explanations you have heard were unsatisfactory as an alternative. I presumed you meant as an alternative explanation to supernatural ones - i.e. God(s)

My questions (which you didn't answer) were:

1. Which parts are unsatisfactory and why are they unsatisfactory?
2. What are the better explanations and why are they satisfactory?

dafydd · 24th January 2013, 08:12 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

How do you know? Does logic tell you?

A complete lack of evidence tells me.

24th January 2013, 02:55 AM	#86
GIBHOR Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 1,978	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. it seems you have a hard time to understand that i am not asking to prove a negative. I have clearly asked to present positive evidence for naturalism.
GIBHOR Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 1,978

24th January 2013, 02:57 AM	#87
GIBHOR Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 1,978	Originally Posted by Gawdzilla DNA is a string of chemicals. No mind needed. No god needed. Indeed, its like a HD, which stores information. You need to answer where the information stored in DNA came from.......
GIBHOR Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 1,978

24th January 2013, 02:58 AM	#88
GIBHOR Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 1,978	Originally Posted by deaman What do you have on hand to convince anyone that there is something else besides the natural world? Its the thread starter that has a hard time with us. Its upon him to present his case for evaluation.
GIBHOR Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 1,978

24th January 2013, 04:07 AM	#90
Gawdzilla 121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri. Posts: 13,519	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. Really? So a delusion that is comfortable is a good delusion?
	__________________ World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources Hyperwar, WWII Military History Kido Butai did not transmit. 木戸舞台は、無線メッセージを送信しませんでした

24th January 2013, 04:09 AM	#91
Gawdzilla 121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri. Posts: 13,519	Originally Posted by GIBHOR Indeed, its like a HD, which stores information. You need to answer where the information stored in DNA came from....... Your analogy is wildly incorrect. As I've pointed out, DNA is a group of chemicals. Do you think gasoline has some mission to power automobiles?
	__________________ World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources Hyperwar, WWII Military History Kido Butai did not transmit. 木戸舞台は、無線メッセージを送信しませんでした

24th January 2013, 02:43 AM	#81
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,165	Originally Posted by dafydd No. What difference is there in believing in a sky daddy and believing in fairies? Morning Dafydd, do you have much snow over there? Fairies are a fictitious concept generated in the human mind. God is in some cases a fictitious concept generated in the human mind, however in other cases it is not. In the latter case it can be a cypher for the cause of our existence, a deity for example, and numerous other things.

24th January 2013, 02:46 AM	#82
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,782	Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins Well, you started the OP by saying that that is how you envision "believers". You never made a distinction between fairy-fanatics and other types of believers. If you do believe in that distinction, then I take back what I said but you certainly didn't make it clear. From your OP it seemed that you put them all into one single pigeonhole entitled "believers". That's probably because they all believe.

24th January 2013, 02:48 AM	#83
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,782	Originally Posted by dafydd A good point. Is there a difference between believing in a sky daddy and believing that Reptilians control the world? Nope.

24th January 2013, 02:49 AM	#84
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,165	Originally Posted by dafydd 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. It doesn't matter whatever reasoning is employed to justify a conclusion that there is no God/god, we are in actual fact none the wiser. Simply, humanity is not in a position to say what is the origin of our existence, or what else exists. Oh and I know by the way about the big bang, QM etc, again we are none the wiser.

24th January 2013, 02:55 AM	#85
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,782	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 ??!! Because DNA is not a book or a computer code.

24th January 2013, 03:02 AM	#89
Mashuna Ovis ex Machina Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Welsh Wales Posts: 6,581	Originally Posted by GIBHOR Indeed, its like a HD, which stores information. You need to answer where the information stored in DNA came from....... It was selected for, naturally.

24th January 2013, 04:12 AM	#92
Gawdzilla 121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri. Posts: 13,519	Originally Posted by GIBHOR it seems you have a hard time to understand that i am not asking to prove a negative. I have clearly asked to present positive evidence for naturalism. 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....... Your burden of proof, to show that there is anything more than this. And I don't care of you deconvert or not.
	__________________ World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources Hyperwar, WWII Military History Kido Butai did not transmit. 木戸舞台は、無線メッセージを送信しませんでした

24th January 2013, 04:17 AM	#93
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,480	Originally Posted by punshhh Morning Dafydd, do you have much snow over there? Fairies are a fictitious concept generated in the human mind. God is in some cases a fictitious concept generated in the human mind, however in other cases it is not. In the latter case it can be a cypher for the cause of our existence, a deity for example, and numerous other things. All gods are fictitious. The highlighted part is meaningless mystical mush. Why would we need a deity to cause our existence?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away. Last edited by dafydd; 24th January 2013 at 04:20 AM.

24th January 2013, 04:36 AM	#94
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,782	Originally Posted by GIBHOR Indeed, its like a HD, which stores information. You need to answer where the information stored in DNA came from....... Information is not stored in DNA. It is not a HD.

24th January 2013, 04:39 AM	#95
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,782	Originally Posted by Gawdzilla Your analogy is wildly incorrect. As I've pointed out, DNA is a group of chemicals. Do you think gasoline has some mission to power automobiles? Clearly the dinosaurs died that we might have energy and have it more abundantly.

24th January 2013, 04:40 AM	#96
Gawdzilla 121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri. Posts: 13,519	Originally Posted by tsig Clearly the dinosaurs died that we might have energy and have it more abundantly. And the Sun wants to keep us warm.
	__________________ World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources Hyperwar, WWII Military History Kido Butai did not transmit. 木戸舞台は、無線メッセージを送信しませんでした

24th January 2013, 04:40 AM	#97
P.J. Denyer Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,159	Originally Posted by Dogdoctor 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. Sounds like a vote in favour of atheism to me. Self blame may or may not be appropriate (either way it is at least more realistic than blaming the Devil or assuming it's a punishment from God, which is another kind of self blame anyway), trying to understand what happened, trying to deal with it and seeking comfort from actual people rather than imaginary beings all seem like pretty sensible ways of dealing with 'something bad' happening.

24th January 2013, 04:41 AM	#98
Gawdzilla 121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri. Posts: 13,519	Can we move the naturalism part to the existing advocacy thread?
	__________________ World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources Hyperwar, WWII Military History Kido Butai did not transmit. 木戸舞台は、無線メッセージを送信しませんでした

24th January 2013, 04:42 AM	#99
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,782	Originally Posted by punshhh Morning Dafydd, do you have much snow over there? Fairies are a fictitious concept generated in the human mind. God is in some cases a fictitious concept generated in the human mind, however in other cases it is not. In the latter case it can be a cypher for the cause of our existence, a deity for example, and numerous other things. Why the special pleading for the god concept?

24th January 2013, 04:45 AM	#100
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,782	Originally Posted by GIBHOR it seems you have a hard time to understand that i am not asking to prove a negative. I have clearly asked to present positive evidence for naturalism. Boy, that's a hard one...Oh wait, the sun came up today.

24th January 2013, 04:46 AM	#101
Good Lt Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Satellite of Love Posts: 1,487	Originally Posted by GIBHOR it seems you have a hard time to understand that i am not asking to prove a negative. I have clearly asked to present positive evidence for naturalism. You're being asked to provide any evidence at all that a god or gods exist. You are making a claim that an invisible skybeing exists. So prove it. Show us the evidence. Your question, on the other hand, makes no sense. It's like asking somebody to prove that capitalism exists. And your approach is a fallacy. Even if naturalism/capitalism/atheism/etc. didn't exist, that doesn't prove that god(s) exist. You still have to prove that with positive and verifiable evidence. You don't 'win by default' here.
	__________________ Sorrowful and great is the artist's destiny. - Liszt Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of wood in your hand is often useful. - Ian Faith Last edited by Good Lt; 24th January 2013 at 04:48 AM.

24th January 2013, 04:51 AM	#102
Rasmus Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 6,138	Originally Posted by JoeBentley What gets me, what really just makes my brain hurt is trying to figure out the disconnect, how demonstratably not crazy people can say crazy things. How are these people "demonstrably not crazy?" what if you look at it as "wow, that crazy person nearly managed to pass off as sane for a minute there" instead?
Rasmus Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 6,138	__________________ "Well, the religious community could not just make it up." - JetLeg

24th January 2013, 04:52 AM	#103
aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 14,155	Originally Posted by GIBHOR Indeed, its like a HD, which stores information. You need to answer where the information stored in DNA came from....... As I mentioned in an earlier post, it's not at all like that. To extend the computer analogy, think of a computer where every component -- the HD, the screen, the keyboard, the CPU -- has all the information needed to build a complete computer. That would be pretty cool, but it's not the way human beings design things, nor does it function in any way like a HD. As to where the information comes from, keep in mind that it took billions of years to accumulate that information through trial and error. It was only very recently, in geological time, that the code grew robust enough to allow for multi-cellular organisms. Very inefficient use of time if there were an intelligent agent behind it.
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

24th January 2013, 04:56 AM	#104
aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 14,155	Originally Posted by GIBHOR it seems you have a hard time to understand that i am not asking to prove a negative. I have clearly asked to present positive evidence for naturalism. Look out the window. See that? It's nature. Want to know how it works? There are science journals available online, although I doubt they can all be read within a normal lifetime. Does naturalism explain everything? Not yet, but there's no reason to think it won't ever be able to. If you can produce a philosophy that explains what you see out the window better than naturalism (that is, without invoking unseen supernatural beings) then let's see it.
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

24th January 2013, 05:16 AM	#105
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,480	Originally Posted by tsig Why the special pleading for the god concept? Because it's mystical.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

24th January 2013, 05:22 AM	#106
Cainkane1 Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: The great American southeast Posts: 7,198	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. People believe what they feel comfortable with and its hard to reason with them.
	__________________ If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.

24th January 2013, 05:50 AM	#107
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,165	Originally Posted by dafydd All gods are fictitious. The highlighted part is meaningless mystical mush. Why would we need a deity to cause our existence? Well, can you give an alternative explanation for our existence. As I said before I know about the big bang etc, that is not an explanation for our existence. Its an explanation of how the world we find ourselves in works, nothing more. Now the more subtle point, do you think it is possible to think and talk about something which is not understood, or known?
	Last edited by punshhh; 24th January 2013 at 06:01 AM.

24th January 2013, 06:00 AM	#108
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,165	Originally Posted by tsig Why the special pleading for the god concept? I don't need any special pleading, logic has provided me with an infinitely large gap to fit any God/god into, if I wanted to hide it. Anyway back to my point, some believers and non believers consider the existence of a God/god, which is not a fiction and may be the origin of our existence. If fairies were comparable, then there would be folk believing in omnipotent non fictional fairies. How many omnipotent non fictional fairies can you fit on the head of a pin? Has logic got the answer?

24th January 2013, 07:06 AM	#109
Last of the Fraggles Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,355	Originally Posted by punshhh Well, can you give an alternative explanation for our existence. As I said before I know about the big bang etc, that is not an explanation for our existence. Its an explanation of how the world we find ourselves in works, nothing more. Now the more subtle point, do you think it is possible to think and talk about something which is not understood, or known? Can you elaborate on specifically what you feel is explained by 'Goddidit' that isn't explained by natural explanations? The phrase 'alternative explanation' suggests 'Goddidit' is an explanation which I take issue with.

24th January 2013, 07:13 AM	#110
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,480	Originally Posted by punshhh Well, can you give an alternative explanation for our existence. As I said before I know about the big bang etc, that is not an explanation for our existence. Its an explanation of how the world we find ourselves in works, nothing more. Why is an explanation needed?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

24th January 2013, 07:14 AM	#111
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,480	Originally Posted by punshhh How many omnipotent non fictional fairies can you fit on the head of a pin? Has logic got the answer? Yes. None. They don't exist.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

24th January 2013, 07:45 AM	#112
Ron_Tomkins Satan's Helper Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 32,045	Quote: Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins Well, you started the OP by saying that that is how you envision "believers". You never made a distinction between fairy-fanatics and other types of believers. If you do believe in that distinction, then I take back what I said but you certainly didn't make it clear. From your OP it seemed that you put them all into one single pigeonhole entitled "believers". Originally Posted by tsig That's probably because they all believe. But they don't all believe with the same amount of blindness and unwillingness to question their beliefs. Not all believers are unable to question their beliefs. Not all believers are close minded obtuse brain washed people. That's my point: That the OP is putting them all into one single pigeonhole.
	__________________ "I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan" Carl Sagan

24th January 2013, 07:55 AM	#113
The Norseman I Void Warranties Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: The Treasure Valley Posts: 3,237	Originally Posted by punshhh Fairies are a fictitious concept generated in the human mind. God is in some cases a fictitious concept generated in the human mind, however in other cases it is not. In the latter case it can be a cypher for the cause of our existence, a deity for example, and numerous other things. So what it seems to me you're saying is that a cypher for the cause of our existence (which apparently has quite a variable definition so therefore no one outside of your head can possibly be aware of what definition it is you're using) is not a fictitious concept? If it's fact, then it can explained easily and briefly to mystic and non-mystic alike, right? Or will you be redefining what 'fact' means as well? Originally Posted by punshhh Well, can you give an alternative explanation for our existence. As I said before I know about the big bang etc, that is not an explanation for our existence. Its an explanation of how the world we find ourselves in works, nothing more. Sounds to me like you're wanting to know why you're here on Earth in the first place? Why do you think the answers are found in mysticism? Why not read the Good Book; it has all the answers you need. Quote: Now the more subtle point, do you think it is possible to think and talk about something which is not understood, or known? Not meaningfully, no. Originally Posted by punshhh I don't need any special pleading, logic has provided me with an infinitely large gap to fit any God/god into, if I wanted to hide it. Then it shouldn't take you long to concisely and accurately define what this infinitely large gap is. Using logic, of course. Quote: Anyway back to my point, some believers and non believers consider the existence of a God/god, which is not a fiction and may be the origin of our existence. ...some non-believers consider the existence of a God/god...? LOL Please stop redefining or using words that have commonly understood meanings to try and make your 'point'. Quote: If fairies were comparable, then there would be folk believing in omnipotent non fictional fairies. Apparently, there are quite a few. If you'd pretend for a moment you were unbiased, you'd see that.
	__________________ "I have always thought that a wild animal never looks so well as when some obstacle of pronounced durability is between us." "Sticking the flounce is the hardest move in forum gymnastics." -tsig

24th January 2013, 07:57 AM	#114
The Norseman I Void Warranties Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: The Treasure Valley Posts: 3,237	Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins But they don't all believe with the same amount of blindness and unwillingness to question their beliefs. Not all believers are unable to question their beliefs. Not all believers are close minded obtuse brain washed people. That's my point: That the OP is putting them all into one single pigeonhole. To the OP apparently those distinguishing characteristics don't seem to matter much. Putting all 'believers [in x]' in the one, single category is valid even if it offends your sensibilities.
	__________________ "I have always thought that a wild animal never looks so well as when some obstacle of pronounced durability is between us." "Sticking the flounce is the hardest move in forum gymnastics." -tsig

24th January 2013, 08:05 AM	#115
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,480	Originally Posted by The Norseman To the OP apparently those distinguishing characteristics don't seem to matter much. Putting all 'believers [in x]' in the one, single category is valid even if it offends your sensibilities. True. Believing in fictional beings is believing in fictional beings.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.