Why do so many theists think they can back up their faith?
- Thread starter Bungalow Bob
- Start date
- Status
Could you explain why it is a false equivalency?
Would you like to explain why you feel that way?
"It's stupid, insulting, dishonest, and one of the least likely to convince someone, and why I avoid threads like these" gives us literally no info about anything.
I'll reply that I disagree, I actually feel it's one of the most likely to convince someone. If any Christian reads what I wrote and thinks about it for more than two seconds, maybe the inception will hit them somewhere down the line.
Er, so are unicorns, dragons, mermaids, Zeus, Thor, Ra, witches, magic, alchemy...
It's practically different just because most of the world is religious while most of the world does not believe in unicorns. Research and think about why this is and it should be pretty obvious why it is not a good argument.
Just to list one of the problems, the existence or not of unicorns doesn't really affect anything. It's not of any consequence to really anybody.
That's just one problem. And on a more pragmatic level using such an argument is not likely to convert a theist.
Yeah, your arrogant condescension is going to work wonders.
Some theists want religion in school, not all of them. Theists that want religion in school, can just go to a school of their religion.
Catholics I am cool with, for the most part. However, you make it sound like fundamentalists are rare, when they actually have a ton of political power and make up quite a large chunk of the population.
Nothing of consequence ;b
No, it's not. Magical unicorns are on equal footing with all supernatural religious dogma when it comes to empirical evidence. Acceptance of religious texts and number of believers and influence on the world isn't relevant there.
At one point, everyone believed Zeus existed. They even had texts about it and everything. And look! Turns out he's as mythical as unicorns!
The idea of Zeus and Poseidon seem ridiculous to us today (and obviously, right?). Think about how people will think of us in another few thousand years.
"It's practically different just because most of the world is religious while most of the world does not believe in unicorns" isn't an argument for anything, other than that humans aren't out of the woods yet when it comes to making stuff up to explain things they can't comprehend (yet).
Pollux
Member
Ah, I didn't mean to imply they were rare, just that not all theists believe as they do. Honestly I think that most of the fundamental Protestants in the US have forgotten what it means to be Christian. That whole charity, love the poor, humility, acceptance, etc. --> I think they must have skipped that portion of the Bible. Not all of them mind you, but many of the one's I've spoken with or those who often run for public office.
In Europe religious fundamentalists are quite rare. Anti-religious fundamentalists (almost all Muslim-haters) are quite common. The US isn't the world.
Most of the world used to believe in all sorts of magical creatures as well. Most of the world is currently religious but that is also finally starting to fade away. It just took longer than belief in unicorns did.
Also, belief in dieties doesn't affect anything either, only belief in an afterlife does, and the only affect is to comfort people who are dying or people who miss people who are dead.
cutmeamango
Banned
Because unicorns as an animal can be established by paleonthological or biological (dormant genes?) evidence.
While the Bible has physical evidences of characters and locales, even if not all chronologically accurate. Which leaves the evidence for the metaphysical and/or metaphorical (consensus may be required hehe) parts.
What is the threshold for the number of people believing in something before that belief cannot be compared with belief in unicorns?
A large number of people in this world believe in Hinduism. Can their belief be comapred to belief in unicorns?
A large number of people, mainly children, believe in Father Christmas. Can their belief be compared to belief in unicorns?
Some people believe in fairies. Can their belief be compared to belief in unicorns?
It isnt about being insulting. Its about demonstrating how rational thinking and logic work. Replace unicorns with whatever other concept that lacks proof or evidence.
You realize the Bible occupies the same area as other mythologies. Its just that when Zeus or Horus appears in historical texts people are ok with ignoring that people once believed they existed because those faiths are no longer practiced. How do you separate them from the Bible or the Bible from Hindu texts?
The only good point here is that it's not likely to convert someone, and even that is debatable.
In every other way - appeal to the majority and whether or not they care about it doesn't effect the validity of the argument that an unsubstantiated deity is no different than an unsubstantiated mythical creature. And maybe it's important to make that argument to show theists there really isn't anything special about their gods, or at least their chances of existence. It's the same as any other baseless belief, especially the one you permissibly find ridiculous.
They aren't really anti-religious, just xenophobic. They're scared of all the Arabs moving into their country and changing their culture, in part because of their religion of Islam being different than the norm of Christianity.
People in Europe may not be as religious as the US but Christianity still plays a big role in their culture, and all the Arabs moving in threaten to change things into something different. That's what they are scared of.
What about fairies? They are also otherworldly and supernatural.
Not everybody in the world is a capital-E Empiricist. Asking "WHY DON'T YOU BELIEVE IN UNICORNS THEN" ignores basically every argument not based on empiricism and is really just an insult.
But you own this website, so if you feel it's good argument, I'm not going to quibble about it. I just won't post in this thread any more just like I don't post in any religion thread because I never feel like the opposing arguments are in good faith.
Unicorns are magical, they don't have genes, they're made of stardust.
Bungalow Bob
Banned
Do you honestly think you're any better than some delusional man who thinks he has an invisible pet unicorn and feeds him invisible hay? Or delusional atheists in general? That's insulting to delusional people.
There are good arguments not based on empiricism?
So the atheist politicians who are hating on the Islam, and in lesser degree on Christianity, are doing it because they are Christians?
You're looking for insults where none exist, and doing your best to drag the thread down based on your perception of the tone of someone's argument ("your logic makes me angry, therefore it isn't a good argument!"), so yes, best you leave.
Actually they're made of rainbows. Prove me wrong.
Unicorns are magical and did not descend along with other animals. And being magical in nature, they don't leave behind physical remnants. Also, they live forever anyway.
Unicorns are referenced in the Bible, and cited in other texts and artworks as being in located in places we know actually exist.
You've said this about 10 times. It really seems petulant and childish to keep dismissing all arguments this way.
You dismiss the unicorn argument because "most of the world does not believe in unicorns".
This suggest you think religious veracity is a numbers game. The more people believe, the more valid the belief.
Can you answer what make deities special, especially when people disbelieve in all but a set few that make up their faith?
I'm saying they just don't want their culture to change, but maybe I didn't say it correctly.
The Biblical Unicorn is an ox, not a unicorn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn#Biblical
Which of course is something completely different from being religious. My claim that religious fundamentalists are quite rare thus still stands.
Good to know. That still doesn't change that unicorns are on the same level as any diety when it comes to having reason to believe they exist.
I don't even know what we're talking about anymore with the fundamentalists. I think I'm confused.
good thing we still got the leviathan
D
Deleted member 30609
Unconfirmed Member
I usually don't like posting in threads like this, because I don't feel I'd be able to articulate myself effectively, but I just thought I'd quote this post and give it some love.
I was just reminded of the Asch conformity experiments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mq7xb9F0g_I
Your argument was that theists are influencing politics. I'm just saying that is limited to the US (and the Middle East), in Europe pro-religion parties don't play a role in politics. Theists aren't trying to influence the government here. Except some nut-wing group that everybody laughs at and aren't an official party.
Indeed, he is also way cooler than a unicorn. A unicorn stands for pink, girly things.
You're being disingenuous if you say that invoking unicorns and other language that people use in these threads isn't deliberately condescending.
While you're here, are you able to explain why such outright disrespect for religion is tolerated if not condoned on your website when breathing sideways in a thread about animated ponies is a bannable offense?
You just compared Christianity to not being able to insult My Little Pony.
He asked why "these people" think they have a good reason for believing what they believe in. As opposed to who? The theists who admit that they have bad reasons for believing what they believe in? Don't ALL people think they have good reasons for having faith in something, whether it be religious or something else? Isn't that why it's considered "faith", reasoning notwithstanding?
Because we kept calling them rapist pedophiles. That's pretty harsh man, even if we don't like the things they like.
We haven't been calling you guys rapist pedophiles, as far as I'm aware.
I mean, except where it's warranted, as with the case of catholic priests.
Sanky Panky
Banned
So the hebrew text described a strong bull with horns, and they arbitrarily decided to call it "unicorn" in a 17th century translation because of it's "untameable" nature.
Great point you guys...
So if people used Zeus instead of unicorn it would be respectful because it would be using another god?
That was just some stupid factoid someone posted, that's not the basis of any argument.
The point is that unicorns are just as implausible as gods.
Actually, unicorns are less implausible than gods because horses exist, and we know grotesque mutations can occur.
You're right, it's wrong to compare unicorns to gods because something somewhat like a unicorn could exist and be verified.
Well, unless we're talking about the type of unicorn made of rainbows, that kind is still equatable to gods. So I guess only unicorn looking horses (by the strict definition, that is, having 1 horn) can't be compared to gods, but unicorns (the magical kind) can still be compared to gods.
cutmeamango
Banned
If fairies too are like these two quotes, then it's all fair and square. Too contrast with the "otherwordly" parts of the Bible. Which are the Angels and allegories (if they are physically represented of course).
Branduil is right. The unicorn argument is basically atheists high fiving each other and going "yeah right, you tell 'em". Its purpose is not to actually convince, but to ridicule and make light of the argument at hand. No one is going to say: "Wow, you're right, my belief in God is the same as belief in unicorns, I guess I should add unicorns to the list of things I believe in renounce my religion".
Everyone who uses the argument knows this.
Everyone who uses the argument knows this.
slidewinder
Banned
How about the fact that, however demonstrably wrong and even ridiculous they might be, religious beliefs can have apparently positive value for the believer?
For example, at least one Gaffer claims that belief in a "higher power" (specifically an evangelical Christian conception of Jesus) was and was alone what allowed him to overcome some seriously self-destructive behavior. He knew rationally that he was literally killing himself, but, despite that clear conviction, wasn't able to get straight until he "found Jesus". He credits that attitude of orientation toward a higher power with giving him the strength to overcome addiction and other destructive habits.
He's wrong in the particulars of his belief: the existence of the Christian God; the Christian Bible being His Word; the divinity, miraculous acts, and resurrection of Jesus. It's all bogus. But isn't it fair to say that his beliefs have had value, even great value, for him, and isn't that a kind of justification?
And this is not to say that religious belief is the only way to achieve this sort of "inner" or psychological strength, or (of course) that such a state is incompatible with a rational, or naturalistic, or scientific, or whatever-you-want-to-call-it worldview. It's of course possible that he would've gotten back on track in some other way. But this state is also (obviously) not a necessary accompaniment of such a worldview, and the potential value or importance, to believers, of belief in this respect doesn't seem to come up all that often on either side of these arguments, at least not in explicit terms.
For example, at least one Gaffer claims that belief in a "higher power" (specifically an evangelical Christian conception of Jesus) was and was alone what allowed him to overcome some seriously self-destructive behavior. He knew rationally that he was literally killing himself, but, despite that clear conviction, wasn't able to get straight until he "found Jesus". He credits that attitude of orientation toward a higher power with giving him the strength to overcome addiction and other destructive habits.
He's wrong in the particulars of his belief: the existence of the Christian God; the Christian Bible being His Word; the divinity, miraculous acts, and resurrection of Jesus. It's all bogus. But isn't it fair to say that his beliefs have had value, even great value, for him, and isn't that a kind of justification?
And this is not to say that religious belief is the only way to achieve this sort of "inner" or psychological strength, or (of course) that such a state is incompatible with a rational, or naturalistic, or scientific, or whatever-you-want-to-call-it worldview. It's of course possible that he would've gotten back on track in some other way. But this state is also (obviously) not a necessary accompaniment of such a worldview, and the potential value or importance, to believers, of belief in this respect doesn't seem to come up all that often on either side of these arguments, at least not in explicit terms.
[Clark Gable]
Banned
Unicorns. Heh.
- Status