Posted: Dec 11, 2011 1:14 am
Well, lt's see.
1. Actually, I'd like any argument that isn't the equivalent of, "Oh, look at the flowers, therefore God" or, even better, "Oh, look at the flowers. Therefore specifically my religion's god but not the god of anybody else's religion". The latter is the one I find annoying.
2. Education may be a factor but intelligence has little to do with it. People believe in religions because those religions meet their needs. That's not getting into why most people end up in a specific religion which is mostly cultural and theists for some reason want so to avoid that reality.
3. Theists are not inherently stupid and it takes tremendous intelligence to work out some of these philosophies and they are necessary often to explain why the world isn't logically consistent with an omnipotent god.
4. The problem is that argument has to start with the assumption that moral values are objective and then use it to "prove" God so, in that case, objective moral values are the blind assertion and the existence of God the blind assertion within a blind assertion.
5. Ahem. I'm not entirely arguing on that one.
6. I whistle innocently and look at the next one.
7. I think few claim science is the only means to truth. But theists love to claim something exists as a fact and not a philosophical one, and then cry foul when they are asked for empirical evidence for an empirical claim.
8. The people who primarily use atheism as other than a lack of belief in "God" are primarily people who are trying to put believing in something without evidence on the same level as not believing it without evidence.
9. Many religious claims are testable. Many are not. Religious people tend to evade the ones that are testable and then ignore it when every testable claim fails the tests.
10. I primarily compare mythical entities that traffic in flaming swords, magic trees that give knowledge and have angels and demons running around equal probability to Santa and invisible unicorns. Gods like that are the gods most people believe in or are just derivative updates and modern facelifts of such gods. For most people, no matter how much they try to play that game, they are really talking about some ancient, tribal god. Aside from that, I've seen arguments that are based from a core concept of "God" and theists pretty much do the inductive routine as you said, just as they always do.
Let's define what God would be.
Atheist: Okay, so God is omnipotent and Love Incarnate and guided the process of life. Does reality seem to indicate that such a being exists? Honestly, no.
Theist: Okay, God is omnipotent and Love Incarnate and guided the process of life. Does the evidence support that hypothesis? Well, once we start adjusting the definition and throwing in things to force fit things as they really are then yes.
Same things that always happens with theists.
The core problem is how theists today view themselves. We live in an allegedly Rational age or at least an age where it is possible to access tremendous empirical information. They want to view themselves as having rational reasons.
But people do not believe in religions because they make sense or fit the evidence or are rational because religions do none of the above. People believe in religions because those religions give them something, meet their needs.
As to the core concept of "God" bereft of any religious agenda, I've yet to meet that person here.
1. Actually, I'd like any argument that isn't the equivalent of, "Oh, look at the flowers, therefore God" or, even better, "Oh, look at the flowers. Therefore specifically my religion's god but not the god of anybody else's religion". The latter is the one I find annoying.
2. Education may be a factor but intelligence has little to do with it. People believe in religions because those religions meet their needs. That's not getting into why most people end up in a specific religion which is mostly cultural and theists for some reason want so to avoid that reality.
3. Theists are not inherently stupid and it takes tremendous intelligence to work out some of these philosophies and they are necessary often to explain why the world isn't logically consistent with an omnipotent god.
4. The problem is that argument has to start with the assumption that moral values are objective and then use it to "prove" God so, in that case, objective moral values are the blind assertion and the existence of God the blind assertion within a blind assertion.
5. Ahem. I'm not entirely arguing on that one.
6. I whistle innocently and look at the next one.
7. I think few claim science is the only means to truth. But theists love to claim something exists as a fact and not a philosophical one, and then cry foul when they are asked for empirical evidence for an empirical claim.
8. The people who primarily use atheism as other than a lack of belief in "God" are primarily people who are trying to put believing in something without evidence on the same level as not believing it without evidence.
9. Many religious claims are testable. Many are not. Religious people tend to evade the ones that are testable and then ignore it when every testable claim fails the tests.
10. I primarily compare mythical entities that traffic in flaming swords, magic trees that give knowledge and have angels and demons running around equal probability to Santa and invisible unicorns. Gods like that are the gods most people believe in or are just derivative updates and modern facelifts of such gods. For most people, no matter how much they try to play that game, they are really talking about some ancient, tribal god. Aside from that, I've seen arguments that are based from a core concept of "God" and theists pretty much do the inductive routine as you said, just as they always do.
Let's define what God would be.
Atheist: Okay, so God is omnipotent and Love Incarnate and guided the process of life. Does reality seem to indicate that such a being exists? Honestly, no.
Theist: Okay, God is omnipotent and Love Incarnate and guided the process of life. Does the evidence support that hypothesis? Well, once we start adjusting the definition and throwing in things to force fit things as they really are then yes.
Same things that always happens with theists.
The core problem is how theists today view themselves. We live in an allegedly Rational age or at least an age where it is possible to access tremendous empirical information. They want to view themselves as having rational reasons.
But people do not believe in religions because they make sense or fit the evidence or are rational because religions do none of the above. People believe in religions because those religions give them something, meet their needs.
As to the core concept of "God" bereft of any religious agenda, I've yet to meet that person here.