Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sometimes the attempted point is that even if the believer's god exists, their claims about his nature are not coherent and inherently cannot be accurate.
The OP here is Thrill, who is not an an atheist anyway. As an atheist, I do not reject a particular god concept, I do not accept any of them for lack of substantiating evidence. If I critique BibleGod as evil, that is arguing a hypothetical with someone who believes him good -- usually by way of special pleading to excuse his cruelty or indifference and, by extension, quite possibly their emulation thereof.
Well put again. "Lack of substantiating evidence" tends to be the sticking point for me too, and also a good way to put it.
Well put again. "Lack of substantiating evidence" tends to be the sticking point for me too, and also a good way to put it.
I agree. And asking for substantiating evidence for a way of life doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Before I spend much money buying a product, I look for evidence that it is what it promises to be. Why would we do any less with religion.
I am reminded of my best friend in high school, John. I was raised in the methodist church, but he (and my father's side of the family) was catholic. John was the primary reason I converted. After we went to different colleges, we lost track. 25 years later I located him on the internet and thought it would be nice to re-establish contact. We hadn't been talking on the phone for more than 5 minutes before he started to try to convert me to born again christianity...because he had determined that catholicism was a false religion and anyone who not born again...and certainly no Buddhist...could avoid hell. By his own admission, he was all wrong once. Why should I listen to him 'now'?
From the available evidence within this material Reality, there is little to encourage you to think so except a personal encounter, IMO! It is quite a disturbing conundrum from my perspective having had the encounter and recognizing exactly how personal and caring God is! Our real status as Spirit Beings is what confounds the issues, IMO.
"Special pleading" lets unpack how it is used here.
"I don't see any convincing evidence.
Then we say
What about this?
What about that?
And then if we look using "that other thing".
Wait for it ...
we are only talking about a forward thinking meddling type of deity god ...
I agree. And asking for substantiating evidence for a way of life doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Before I spend much money buying a product, I look for evidence that it is what it promises to be. Why would we do any less with religion.
Wow. You wouldn't make a very good doctor, phet.
If a patient presents to a doctor that they've been having headaches, would you automatically dismiss their ailment, simply because you can't find any evidence of a headache? You could take all the x-rays available to man, and STILL not find any evidence of something known that would cause a headache. It doesn't mean that they're not having headaches.
Would you be the kind of doctor that tells the patient that they're "crazy", because *you* can't find any evidence of a headache in the patient?
Everyone's experiences in life are different. You don't get to deny someone else's experiences, simply because you don't have them.
Just because you may not have experienced God's love, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Quote:
I am reminded of my best friend in high school, John. I was raised in the methodist church, but he (and my father's side of the family) was catholic. John was the primary reason I converted. After we went to different colleges, we lost track. 25 years later I located him on the internet and thought it would be nice to re-establish contact. We hadn't been talking on the phone for more than 5 minutes before he started to try to convert me to born again christianity...because he had determined that catholicism was a false religion and anyone who not born again...and certainly no Buddhist...could avoid hell. By his own admission, he was all wrong once. Why should I listen to him 'now'?
If a patient presents to a doctor that they've been having headaches, would you automatically dismiss their ailment, simply because you can't find any evidence of a headache? You could take all the x-rays available to man, and STILL not find any evidence of something known that would cause a headache. It doesn't mean that they're not having headaches.
Would you be the kind of doctor that tells the patient that they're "crazy", because *you* can't find any evidence of a headache in the patient?
Everyone's experiences in life are different. You don't get to deny someone else's experiences, simply because you don't have them.
Just because you may not have experienced God's love, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I'm not a doctor. Have no interest in being one. So that's a rather irrelevant statement.
Bolded -- my post didn't have anything to do with a belief someone else has. It had to do with a belief someone was attempting to pass on to others.
If a patient presents to a doctor that they've been having headaches, would you automatically dismiss their ailment, simply because you can't find any evidence of a headache? You could take all the x-rays available to man, and STILL not find any evidence of something known that would cause a headache. It doesn't mean that they're not having headaches.
There is nothing in the post you're responding to to remotely suggest such a thing.
And it is a false equivalence between a patient saying they have a headache and a theist claiming to have this or that experience of god. Headaches are known and established things in the physical world. Gods are not. A headache is routine and unremarkable and it's generally safe to assume a patient reporting one is not making it up; gods are extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence. The two things are not even in the same league.
Theist's pleas for unbelievers to be more credulous are noted, but it is not unreasonable to present evidence for highly consequential and fantastical claims when requested, if you expect people to buy those claims. Your problem is not that we are asking for too much -- but that you cannot provide any evidence.
There is nothing in the post you're responding to to remotely suggest such a thing.
And it is a false equivalence between a patient saying they have a headache and a theist claiming to have this or that experience of god. Headaches are known and established things in the physical world. Gods are not. A headache is routine and unremarkable and it's generally safe to assume a patient reporting one is not making it up; gods are extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence. The two things are not even in the same league.
Theist's pleas for unbelievers to be more credulous are noted, but it is not unreasonable to present evidence for highly consequential and fantastical claims when requested, if you expect people to buy those claims. Your problem is not that we are asking for too much -- but that you cannot provide any evidence.
And let me add: If Clyde walks down the street quietly minding his own business, why would anyone question his religious beliefs. If Clyde walks down the street telling strangers about his religious beliefs, those strangers have an inherent right to question Clyde.
That's the same principle I use. I don't walk down the street yelling, "I'm a Buddhist". If it comes up in a normal conversation, I may discuss it (certainly that's true in a religious forum). And if someone asks me to explain something about Buddhism or my specific Buddhist beliefs, it's up to me to discuss it IF I brought it up. Whether they choose to accept what I tell them or not...that's up to them.
If a patient presents to a doctor that they've been having headaches, would you automatically dismiss their ailment, simply because you can't find any evidence of a headache? You could take all the x-rays available to man, and STILL not find any evidence of something known that would cause a headache. It doesn't mean that they're not having headaches.
Would you be the kind of doctor that tells the patient that they're "crazy", because *you* can't find any evidence of a headache in the patient?
Everyone's experiences in life are different. You don't get to deny someone else's experiences, simply because you don't have them.
Just because you may not have experienced God's love, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
They are special pleading.
If we leave out their special pleading, then the belief in some thing more is, by far, more reliable than than the reverse.
we can take steps to try and see what it might be. And discuss. But the simple fact is we are part of a larger more complex system.
Any system analyst knows that. That's why special pleading has to be deployed. If we take a systems approach to belief, well, lets just say we have hide some things to maintain "anti-god is more reliable" claims.
If a patient presents to a doctor that they've been having headaches, would you automatically dismiss their ailment, simply because you can't find any evidence of a headache? You could take all the x-rays available to man, and STILL not find any evidence of something known that would cause a headache. It doesn't mean that they're not having headaches.
Would you be the kind of doctor that tells the patient that they're "crazy", because *you* can't find any evidence of a headache in the patient?
Everyone's experiences in life are different. You don't get to deny someone else's experiences, simply because you don't have them.
Just because you may not have experienced God's love, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
yeah, some people are not looking at "relative reliability" for a claims in a belief forum.
They are so mad that somebody, how dare them, told them a belief.
again, that looks like special pleading.
"I am here arguing with theist about how wrong their belief is, not because of reliability, but because they actually used freedom of speech."
is that special pleading best suited for belief or political?
hmmm ....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Someone has learnt a new phrase they do not understand
