Forums | MacLife

Tallgeese wrote:

mudogramx wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Getting angry is a reaction to something internal not external?

So if you get mad because someone calls your mom a fat smurf-eating whore, it's because you have internal doubts about your mother?

Thats an insult.  Saying god doesn't exist is not.

If you actually read the posts on this page, you'd discover that what I'm taking issue with is the insult (yes, it IS an insult!) of saying that my belief in God is the same as if I were to still believe in a fairy that takes teeth for money.

Ahh, I read that.  I didn't think you were referring to that.  The argument seemed to have shifted direction.

Last edited by mudogramx (2007-09-10 9:19 pm)

ChronoTriggerXP wrote:

It wasn't meant to be an insult, but an analogy of the justification some people use when defending their religious beliefs. I'm sorry you got offended, but that's life.

You're right, there's no evidence that the tooth fairy exists. There is even evidence to suggest that she doesn't. However, the same can be said about God. That's the point I was trying to prove.

- Just because you can't prove something doesn't mean it hasn't happened; the flip-side is that it doesn't mean it has happened either.

Besides, you should have known what you were walking into, the thread title is pretty straight forward.

Yes, and I was purposely avoiding this thread for a while. Then I forgot and just went through unread threads.

The point I'm trying to argue is that there is evidence that a non-idiot can use to support his belief in God. There is no such evidence for belief in the tooth fairy, and any comparison is meant to be smug and insulting.

Tallgeese wrote:

The point I'm trying to argue is that there is evidence that a non-idiot can use to support his belief in God. There is no such evidence for belief in the tooth fairy, and any comparison is meant to be smug and insulting.

Geesie, its cool, its just the internet. If people want to use that strategy, more power to them. What good is reason going to do with someone who thinks the following is a good argument:

1. The tooth fairy doesnt exist.
2. People believe in God.
3. Therefore, believing in God is like believing in the tooth fairy.

KrowMagnum wrote:

StaticAge wrote:

1. The tooth fairy doesnt exist.
2. People believe in God.
3. Therefore, believing in God is like believing in the tooth fairy.

The problem with this is you cannot prove the tooth fairy does not exist.

People do believe in the tooth fairy. Children are people too.

So, are you saying that the tooth fairy could exist in the same sense that god can?  I understand what you mean but its still a very poor argument to convince the other side.  God is not like the tooth fairy to believers, even if it is to you.  God is the foundation of their lives.  Nobody bases their life on the believed teachings of the tooth fairy. You have to go for common ground or something more comparable.

Well good. It is always important to make sure we are clear on analogies which are meant to not convince anyone of anything.

KrowMagnum wrote:

StaticAge wrote:

Well good. It is always important to make sure we are clear on analogies which are meant to not convince anyone of anything.

The analogy was magically changed into a comparison. It was never a comparison.  That is the whole point. I never made the analogy, I'm just pointing out that it was taken as a comparison and it shouldn't have been.

Its most definitely an analogy but a poor one to use in this context.  Thats all I'm saying.

KrowMagnum wrote:

mudogramx wrote:

KrowMagnum wrote:

The analogy was magically changed into a comparison. It was never a comparison.  That is the whole point. I never made the analogy, I'm just pointing out that it was taken as a comparison and it shouldn't have been.

Its most definitely an analogy but a poor one to use in this context.  Thats all I'm saying.

I don't think there is any analogy that won't get someone's panties in a bunch when it comes to religion.

You have a point.  I think the problem is that religion is largely viewed as something that can't be argued.

It's a taboo topic. People take it very personally, some basing their lives around it. I guess I can understand not wanting to hear someone telling you that what you've believed in all your life is a big fat lie.

Maybe the tooth fairy wasn't the best analogy, but I was trying to think of something non-religious that is widely known. I suppose I could have used Santa Claus too, but I would have gotten similar remarks most likely. I doubt ANY analogy I used would have been acceptable to the faithful if t didn't fit with their stance.

Well in regards to this thread, suggesting that religion is a mental illness, God's existence is kinda applicable. If God exists then they're not ill, if he doesn't then maybe they are.

Last edited by ChronoTriggerXP (2007-09-10 10:44 pm)

KrowMagnum wrote:

mudogramx wrote:

You have a point.  I think the problem is that religion is largely viewed as something that can't be argued.

It can't but it is all the time.

As far as I can tell it's the religious people who want to argue the point. Non-believers don't bring up subjects that don't exist in their minds.

I find it interesting how a thread about religion and mental illness turned into an debate on the existence of god.

Its a natural tangent .  Almost any topic about religion ends up this way.  Most true atheists don't argue because they are more sure about their position.  Its definitely not a position to be taken lightly, especially in this world.  The not-so-sures argue a lot.  The arrogant ones start flame wars.  The same can be said about theists as well.

oh snap

They do snake handling all kinds of places.
It generally is very cruel to the snakes involved.
It also is not uncommon for the snakes to be milked first.
Furthermore, some snakes do not envenomate on a defensive strike. Any random snake you don't know - but if you keep "hots" for that purpose may (I don't know) be possible to figure out which snakes conserve their venom for when they intend to kill (eat) and rarely inject in a defensive strike.

But yeah - I don't have a high opinion of the snake handling religious groups.

Interesting tidbit - the snake charmers in India very often sew the mouths of the cobras shut for their public displays. Not all do - those that really understand cobra behaviour can usually avoid being bitten.

So in the snake handling of the religious kind......

Is the snake considered "evil" ?

So if handling the snake is a showing of faith in god, and the person gets bit and dies.
Does that mean that god works through evil (snake) to take one of his faithful ?

So I'm wondering,  has anybody has ever died doing this ?

That always seemed confusing to me. Maybe I got it wrong......

Tallgeese wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

Quite simple, really. It is always the responsibility of the claimant to prove his assertion of the existence of something. It can never be the responsibility of the challenger to prove the non-existence of anything.

You say that there are black swans, and I say that there aren't any. For me to prove that there are NO black swans, it would be necessary for me to catch and label every swan in the world to prove this to be true. Even if I somehow was able to do this impossible task, you could always say that I missed some in some remote region or missed the black swans during their migration. No statistical analysis of swan populations could ever discount the possibility that some were missed.

On the other hand, you could show me a black swan and that would disprove any and all effort I might have put into such.

If you choose to be insulted by a such a clear claim of lack of proof of the existence of God, then your anger in regard to religion should be self-analyzed.

I'm insulted by the claim that a belief in a god is equivalent to the belief in a fairy which flies around at night exchanging childrens' teeth for money.

Here, let me ask some people a few questions.

Mom, did you take the teeth and place the money? Yes? Okay.

Mr. Hawking, how did the universe come into existence? You don't know? Okay.

Really, the God-in-the-gaps argument?

Science by its very nature leads to more questions. There will be places where an answer will appear to be unknowable by current knowledge such as the cause of the Big Bang. People right now are working on the problem of what happened before the Big Bang (as meaningless that question might be considering that time itself seems to be a phenomenon coming out of the Big Bang, but there may be a meta-time which may give it meaning). Perhaps there will be some breakthrough in the future that will make the Big Bang an understandable event. Saying "I don't know" is not a failure of science--it's a challenge to it.

If and when the reasons for the Big Bang become knowable, such answers will surely bring on more questions. A new set of gaps will be created by the additional knowledge, and you will merely move the goalposts further on into that gap.