AWB: I would guess that if you did a poll of 100 Christians, precisely 0 would cite the Loch Ness monster as the reason they don't believe in "evolution" (a word that requires a considerable amount of defining, by the way).

It's a classic straw man argument that you're using. But I'm not going to deconstruct it or argue against it because 1) I have no dog in this fight and 2) you've already decided what your opinion will be for all of time, so you wouldn't listen anyway.

@Koch: "I don't buy it, but I'm not you, so I guess I have no evidence. I'd say if you stopped believing in God the same time you stopped believing in Santa Claus, then you never believed in him. Other than the childish way of believing everything adults tell you, that is. If I tell my 5 year old the moon is made of cheese he'll "believe" me, but I wouldn't say he ever really believed because as soon as he gets old enough he'll know I'm full of crap. That's not the same at all as a worldview-level belief."

Distinction without a difference. How is "the Bible says so" any different from "my parents say so," and what differentiates this from a "worldview-level belief?"

"I'd argue that you're just as much a douchebag as the militant Christians you're so offended by."

Well fuck you too, then.

"It comes from not being able to understand and tolerate people's differing beliefs."

I tolerate beliefs all day long. It's actions that rustle my jimmies, and when I see the same set of beliefs leading to the same set of actions over and over again, I start to think that maybe those beliefs should be questioned.

"You're probably the kind of person who thinks all Christians are idiots and 'if only they were as smart as me' and the like. In fact, it's obvious that you are."

Do you even realize how hypocritical you're being right now?

"You wouldn't be swayed by anything that a Christian could ever say in a debate, because in your mind you've decided this long ago and don't care what they have to say."

I came here for an argument. This is abuse.

Do you even know what a straw man argument is? Nessie -> "evolution is false" is not MY argument. It's the argument of a Christian fundamentalist textbook that my tax dollars are paying for.

Kochevnik: And you're any more willing to listen? He shows up, says nothing that you have reason to consider insulting, and you immediately dismiss him as a douchebag.

Fortress Door: Right, so are you comparing a grown man hoping for the theory of universal gravitation to be wrong so that he could fly to yourself hoping that Christianity is wrong?

OK. See, it's the "I came here for an argument" statement that makes me laugh. That's exactly what I'm talking about. You didn't come here to see what someone else's point of view on something might be. You came to show them how wrong they are!

Do you not get that that's exactly what I'm talking about? I'm sorry I was snarky with you, but I've just dealt with lots of people like you before and I find that it's just pointless, so I resort to snark. I apologize; I realize that's irritating but I don't know what else to do with those who want to argue without taking the other person's point of view seriously.

Anyway, you're right about one thing: I was being hypocritical to say that about your attitude. Because, while I was right, you ARE the kind of person who thinks they're smarter than those on the "other side," I'm the kind of person who thinks that I'm smarter than those who have to argue about it all the time and who can't appreciate that other people think differently.

I admit that it's a problem for me, and I shouldn't have said that. I shouldn't even get involved in threads like this at all, as I don't know any other way to react; I should just let you and the Christians come to digital blows if it makes you happy. I was wrong.

... all i was saying is that i by no means WANT Christianity to be true.

Here's the straw man, just because I don't think you understood me (which is probably my fault). You said "look at these idiots who believe that Nessie disproves evolution! It's so stupid." It's a straw man because yes, that would be stupid, but no, virtually zero Christians actually believe that.

You've misrepresented what your opponents actually think in order to make it look stupid and easily disproved. Pretty much the definition of a straw man argument.

Anyway, I'm out. I sincerely apologize to AWB for my tone in the earlier post; it was uncalled for. JECE was just as correct to point it out.

Back to your hammers, both sides. Have fun whaling on one another.

1 a: creates a circular argument
1 b: creates a circular argument
2 a (1): doesn't make sense in context
3: archaic

1 c: Belief in God and Jesus is based on a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense.
2 a (2): Belief in God and Jesus is based on proper exercise of the mind.
2 a (3): Belief in God and Jesus is agreeable to sanity.
2 b: Belief in God and Jesus is based on the sum of the intellectual powers.

2 a (2) hinges on the word 'proper', which is very subjective in this case because we don't know what our aim is.
2 b, if not a moot point, is useless to us because nobody is going to possess "the sum of the intellectual powers"

Atheism, Theism, it's a leap of faith either way.

I think Kochevnik just admitted to doing what he accused (almost) everyone else of doing--He just picked a fight. But I respect that he apologized, if not in the best grace.

Fortress Door, I'd love to hear more of your experience and thoughts. PM if you don't care to share in open forum

"OK. See, it's the 'I came here for an argument' statement that makes me laugh. That's exactly what I'm talking about. You didn't come here to see what someone else's point of view on something might be. You came to show them how wrong they are!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYj7q_by_2E

"Do you not get that that's exactly what I'm talking about? I'm sorry I was snarky with you, but I've just dealt with lots of people like you before and I find that it's just pointless, so I resort to snark. I apologize; I realize that's irritating but I don't know what else to do with those who want to argue without taking the other person's point of view seriously."

What point of view is there to take seriously? You haven't even presented one.

"Anyway, you're right about one thing: I was being hypocritical to say that about your attitude. Because, while I was right, you ARE the kind of person who thinks they're smarter than those on the 'other side,' I'm the kind of person who thinks that I'm smarter than those who have to argue about it all the time and who can't appreciate that other people think differently."

Having false beliefs doesn't make anyone less smart. I used to be an objectivist, which is about the wrongest set of beliefs one can have. That doesn't mean I was less smart then than I was now. It's possible to be smart and wrong at the same time.

"I admit that it's a problem for me, and I shouldn't have said that. I shouldn't even get involved in threads like this at all, as I don't know any other way to react; I should just let you and the Christians come to digital blows if it makes you happy. I was wrong."

Doesn't mean you weren't smart. But hopefully you'll be smarter in the future.

@dipplayer. Sure thing. I will start composing it right now.

"Here's the straw man, just because I don't think you understood me (which is probably my fault). You said "look at these idiots who believe that Nessie disproves evolution! It's so stupid." It's a straw man because yes, that would be stupid, but no, virtually zero Christians actually believe that."

Not "virtually zero." It's a non-zero number.

http://www.eternitychristianacademy.com/index.html

"You've misrepresented what your opponents actually think in order to make it look stupid and easily disproved. Pretty much the definition of a straw man argument."

Are dinosaurs alive today? Scientists are becoming more convinced of their existence.
Have you heard of the `Loch Ness Monster' in Scotland? `Nessie,' for short has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur.

Could a fish have developed into a dinosaur? As astonishing as it may seem, many evolutionists theorize that fish evolved into amphibians and amphibians into reptiles. This gradual change from fish to reptiles has no scientific basis. No transitional fossils have been or ever will be discovered because God created each type of fish, amphibian, and reptile as separate, unique animals. Any similarities that exist among them are due to the fact that one Master Craftsmen fashioned them all."

Extract from Biology 1099, Accelerated Christian Education Inc. (1995)

^How did I misrepresent this?

So, that leaves the following two questions:
1. Is belief in God and Jesus based on a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense?
2. Is belief in God and Jesus agreeable to sanity?

The second question can only be answered after the first question has been answered, so it can be safely ignored.

At this point I can progress no further. I can only determine if belief in God or Jesus is rational if a believer presents a plausible case for God or Jesus' existence. Since I (who has found the concept of a god so illogical that I have never truly considered the existence of one) don't believe gods can be plausibly contemplated to exist, I would have to rely on believers or agnostics to prove that a god could exist.

If a god could exist then the belief in God and Jesus is rational.
If a god cannot exist then a belief in God and Jesus is not rational.

Of course, I myself am forced to conclude that belief in God and Jesus is not rational because I do not believe that gods can exist. But for either of those statements to hold for the rest of you as a whole, then somebody would have to try and prove that gods could exist. (Of course, now I'm realizing that it's not even gods that we're talking about; we're talking about 'God Himself'. In that case, a believer in 'God Himself' or an agnostic needs to prove that 'God Himself' can exist, not that just any god can exist.)

dipplayer2004: No, it is not a leap of faith either way. I was brought up in a non-religous household and have never considered the existence of gods. How does it take any faith for me to believe that gods don't exist? You, I'm sure, have never believed that Jack Sparrow exists or even been able to consider the possibility. Is that an act of faith?

Fortress Door 'boutta do some Thomas Aquinas stuff. This I can roll with.

Actually, it is an act of faith. I have no sure knowledge that about Jack Sparrow. It's a pretty easy act of faith, to not believe in a character that I know to be a fictional creation, but I cannot know it for certain, as I'm not omniscient. There are huge gaps in my knowledge.

And just because you've never considered the existence of God, due to upbringing, how is that any different from the religious person who never questions His existence, having always been brought up to take it for granted?

Faith is not believing in something without thinking. My belief in God involves a great deal of thinking, hard thinking at that.

I accept that theists do, in fact, do an awful lot of thinking about their beliefs. The mere fact that I know who Thomas Aquinas is should demonstrate that.

That doesn't change the fact that believing in something, regardless of how much you've thought about it, doesn't make it true.

I don't get you guys. I mean, this sure doesn't seem a debate, as always when the topic is This One.
I'm not saying that it's not interesting (I am reading and replying, so it must be), but I think my interest is in exploring your way of thinking and how you all argument your choices. But regarding religion(s), I really do not understand what you're trying to accomplish.

I am well aware that my choices are only mine. I am fully convinced that a position shared by billions of man (I put Christianity/Ebraism and Islam in the same cauldron for "faith" purpose) can't be reduced to "nonsense, bullshit, stupid illusions" & everything that comes in mind. This goes for atheism too (in all its forms).

That said, my thought is that God does not exist and faith is for people refusing to accept reality (something similar to madness, but more structured thanks to its ancient - ancestral? - rules and thus commonly accepted today, also considering the number of believers of all kind).
BUT ------- this is MY point of view, matured in a certain environment (and with a mind built in a certain environment). I know that I LACK faith and so I can't really understand other's mind "built on faith", and I know as well that their faith BLINDS them when it comes to understand why God doesn't obviously exist in my opinion.

When I see someone saying "I know the truth", I laugh. You can HOPE to "know the truth", but to "be sure to know the truth" you should have already known the truth before being sure to know it. That is (obviously) impossible. God itself COULD be a mankind's creation (it's my point of view, with my reasons), and thus it COULD NOT be used as a fixed point around which you can build your reality. But when I say "could be", I am saying "could be" and "could be not" (it's all in the "could"). I know that I do not know and I know that no one knows, because it's a matter of a starting point (and no one knows if God was there during creation).

I could explain why in my opinion God (any god) doesn't exists, but why? To entertain you? (it woudn't be a bad reason). People thinking like me will understand and praise me, and the others won't, thinking "You simply don't understand" (I would agree: i can't understand, i lack faith).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsqJFIJ5lLs

Wow, hints by yt? Very funny! (for real!)

Actually, I think atheists have an immense amount of faith. Faith in their own intellect. It's pretty intense hubris to conclude that you understand the nature of reality.

@Catan Off topic, I know, but is your username a reference to Settlers of Catan?

@dipplayer: How is lack of belief hubris?

@Dipplayerdoesnt that mean that people who believe also have extreme hubris to think that their belief is real and that they understand the nature of reality?

To conclude there is no God, you have to be awfully confident that you understand the nature of reality. Where it came from, what it's about, how it works. I don't dare to conclude that I have that kind of understanding. I think it is breathtakingly bold to do so.

Tyran, no, not if it's a mature belief. I admit that there are plenty of things I don't understand. I don't understand how or why God created the universe, what his purposes are for it, why there is evil, etc. etc.

There are religious people who seem to claim or act as if they know the mind of God on all these things, but they scare me, too.