News and Politics Forum

I'm sorry if that was too complicated an analogy.  Maybe you can find a high school student to explain it to you.

zukiphile wrote:

axe wrote:

Quarken wrote:

If you couldn't swim, would you cross a river with an average depth of 4 feet?  Why?  Because of what you know, or because of what you don't know?

Apply that same logic to the concept of religion, and you will understand why it is irrational.

What?

http://users.secsme.org.au/~prbarnes/wi … find-x.PNG

The way I see it, he's personifying the river as life, you see, and the flow of life it like the difficulties we face throughout it. You don't know the depth before, uh, before you step in, but then it's too late so uh, you need to have faith, if you don't know how to swim, but all you can do is the dog paddle. Apparently dogs have an innate ability to swim, it seems instinctive. i wonder why humans lost that ability, or did they ever have it? I wonder if chimps can swim? I saw a TV special not long ago and there was this gorilla that could write and draw, and recognize things on a computer monitor, a lot like that African Grey parrot, Alex. You know Alex died not long ago? He was unbelievably smart, more like a young child than an animal. He was amazing to watch. Birds can't swim, because they can fly, they can fly right over the water, they don't have to swim like dogs and chimps. So in conclusion, this is why you should carefully consider whether there's a waterfall like Wile E. Coyote would fall of of, at the end of that river. QED.

Raoul Duke wrote:

I thought we had one trying to explain it.

8th grade sounds about right to me.

Raoul Duke wrote:

Quarken wrote:

I'm sorry if that was too complicated an analogy.  Maybe you can find a high school student to explain it to you.

I thought we had one trying to explain it. 

Maybe you can try again next year.

Sry, I didn't know axe was a high schooler.  I guess that makes sense, though.

Please substitute "Zeus" for "Santa" and maybe we can continue our conversation?

Quarken wrote:

Well, you can't prove that God doesn't exist in the same way that you can't prove Santa doesn't exist.  Yet, we could agree (hopefully) that an adult worshipping Santa is irrational.

The scope of what people believe either entity encompasses isn't similar. At all.

Your comparison trivializes.

Sry, I didn't know axe was a high schooler.  I guess that makes sense, though.

Please substitute "Quarken" for "axe".

Quarken wrote:

Please substitute "Zeus" for "Santa" and maybe we can continue our conversation?

What conversation?  You offer bits of “religion is a superstition” and “believing in God is like believing in Santa” as though they were particularly new or interesting arguments.  I hope you don't believe your act is original here.

I believe you would be more comfortable if all people of faith admitted that they lack your level of intellectual sophistication, are all simple-minded sheep and that metaphors about the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus etc. are suitable means by which to debate the merits of faith and religion? 

Keep going – you may collect the entire set of pseudo-intellectual religion-bashing clichés in one thread. 

Maybe you can ask us if God can make a stone too heavy for Him to lift?  Perhaps even go further and make the claim that religion is the cause of more wars and death than any other thing in man’s history? 

I know I have not engaged much in detail, but I’m hoping you’ll offer something we haven’t heard from your particular viewpoint.  So far it’s nothing we haven’t come to expect from somebody feeling out the ideas they picked up in Phil 105 but who is unaware that they’re stale and don’t stand up in a debate with people who aren’t predisposed to agree with and be impressed by them. 

I don't expect you to disprove God - but if you're going to come into a discussion as a new member and simply insult members' faith I'd suggest offering more than "it's like, a superstition dude." 

From what I have seen thus far I do not believe you actually want a discussion.  You want to insult faith and religion without providing anything compelling or interesting. 

Ridiculing and assuming points not established is not a way to gain interest in your posts.

It's not exaclty my fault if it's so easy that it's a cliche.

JRoyC07 wrote:

Quarken wrote:

Please substitute "Zeus" for "Santa" and maybe we can continue our conversation?

The greeks seemed pretty rational to me.

As far as im concerned, I know nothing about God's existance/non-existance. I have no faith because I choose not to believe in something that cannot be proven.

If I understand correctly, you are an athiest. You deny the existance of God. However, you cannot prove with certaintly that God does not exist. Hence, in being an athiest, you take the principal of God's non-existance on faith.

At the risk of being repetitive, this is the SAME thing, as if you believed there was a God. Because you could not prove that God existed.

By not believing in God, you are still holding a belief. So you have faith. 

You probably think that believing in/worshipping God is irrational. Thats ok, but realize that to a believer in God your decision is equally irrational.

Athieism seems more plausible to you than theism. OK, but neither of you are right (or at least provably right)

Disbelief is merely a belief in a negative. Which when applied to something that cannot be proven = faith (again)

The only way not to have faith with regard to an almighty is to have not belief at all (positive or otherwise).

If you have no beliefs at all, than you are agnostic.

Please read and consider this before replying.

You make good points, but we define atheism differently. 

Don't believe in God = atheism.  I don't believe that I have to prove God doesn't exist in order to not believe in God.

The same applies to Santa, Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti monster no matter how condescending you may find it.

I was not expecting a thoughtful reply in any case.  Thank you for not leaving me dissapointed.

zukiphile wrote:

Quarken wrote:

I don't believe that I have to prove God doesn't exist in order to not believe in God.

Indeed, no one needs to prove a matter to believe it.  If you believe this applies only to you, your position reduces to simple special pleading.

Of course, that's true.  It doesn't make believing in Santa any less ridiculous simply because you can't disprove him.

Quarken wrote:

zukiphile wrote:

Quarken wrote:

I don't believe that I have to prove God doesn't exist in order to not believe in God.

Indeed, no one needs to prove a matter to believe it.  If you believe this applies only to you, your position reduces to simple special pleading.

Of course, that's true.  It doesn't make believing in Santa any less ridiculous simply because you can't disprove him.

Presumably you would ridicule an adult who believes in the existence SC because SC is an acknowledged fiction, not becuase the belief is beyond conclusive proof.  Rational adults believe many things beyond proof.

Ridiculing Erasmus, Equinas, DeCartes, Berkeley or other minds who've contemplated the issue of god is unserious.

Quarken wrote:

I was not expecting a thoughtful reply in any case.  Thank you for not leaving me dissapointed.

You mean like this?

Quarken wrote:

I'm sorry if that was too complicated an analogy.  Maybe you can find a high school student to explain it to you.