mhaze,

I understand Genesis quite well enough to know it can’t be a literal description of reality. But, if you think otherwise, talk to someone else about it.

You are mistaken about ‘hating’ the notion of a god. It’s just a notion to dwell on. Dwelling soon shows the absurdity of people’s interpretation of the notion though. And speaking of dwelling, it would be great to have a sane god running things instead of the monster depicted. And no, I don’t hate the monster depicted because it is make-believe. But dwelling won’t make it true.

Hating the institutions and ramifications of theism is counterproductive. Most atheists are more inclined to point out the irrelevancies, inadequacies and absurdities involved.

No hate there as you can see, just observation. But, religion needs to be hated in good old martyr style. It supports a self-righteous attitude.

And let’s wait for Yuyutsu’s explanation, shall we. Let’s shall.

David

mhaze,

<<Where I'm saying [atheists] are wrong is their view that believers unthinkingly accept what they've been taught, that believers are less evolved, that the beliefs of theists are illogical.>>

That’s a pretty big generalisation given that the only thing atheists have in common is the absence of a belief in any deities. I suspect you’re actually talking about anti-theists (with anti-theism being a subset of atheism) and even then, that’s still a pretty bold generalisation. As an anti-theist myself, I don’t think theists are “less evolved” (WTF?!) and as someone who is very interested in counter-apologetics, I can’t remember the last time I heard someone refer to theistic beliefs as “illogical”, more that they’re irrational or that they go against reason.

<<If, as I've done, I can show that there are myriad theists who are demonstrably intelligent, logical and scientific then the claims of those atheists here must fail.>>

So who are these atheists, anyway? They sound like real blowhards. Anyone can make an off-the-cuff remark that they don't actually mean from time-to-time, but I've never seen an atheist seriously claim that theists can't be intelligent, logical or scientific.

<<To claim they are less evolved, less logical than those here is arrant and arrogant nonsense.>>

It certainly would be! Just as arrogant as elitist agnostics who attempt to take the moral high ground by inventing their own definition of "atheist" and pretending to know what all these atheists think.

<<Belief in the deity is not logical. It is faith based.>>

I could think of many believers who disagree with you there. Either way, though, that doesn’t make faith immune from criticism. Faith is simply a belief held without good reason; it’s not a magical position that cannot, by fiat, be criticised.

Can you explain what on earth you think it is about faith that grants it such a unique privilege that no other mode of thought in this world is afforded?

<<It therefore cannot be disproven with logic.>>

Quite the non sequitur here.

Continued…

…Continued

My suspicions - on any given topic - may not be “logical” (or based on logic, as I presume you actually meant), but that doesn’t mean logic can’t disprove them.

<<The assertions that we know how the universe works sans a deity misunderstands where we are at the moment.>>

No, some just realise that to insert a deity into the gaps in our knowledge is to commit the argument from ignorance fallacy, and that “I don’t know” is a more honest and constructive approach.

<<For example, our current understanding is that we need to postulate a 'dark matter' that dwarfs all other visible matter. We can't see 'dark matter', we don't know where it is, what it is, how it exists, how it works. We just know, or think we know, that the universe doesn't work without it.>>

I’ve already discredited your dark matter analogy… http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5547#152488

<<So, given our scientific understanding of the universe, we have faith that 'dark matter' exists. In that regard it is in precisely the same category as the deity.>>

No, faith is belief without good reason. We have good reason to believe dark matter exists.

<<As Chesterton said, “He who does not believe in God will believe in anything.”>>

I could just as easily say, “He who believes in God will believe in anything”. But by agreeing with this, you are guilty of the same flawed reasoning and generalising that you accuse your mythical atheists of.

Even more curious, however, is that by referring to yourself as “agnostic”, you are including yourself in the category that Chesterton was talking about.

<<If its not a belief in a deity its a belief in something which is often worse.>>

Really? So what belief have you taken up in replacement of your lack of belief in deities?

And what makes you (and Chesterton, for that matter) think that a belief in deities is any sort of inoculation against the other beliefs you listed? Indeed, belief in deities is often used as a justification for some of those beliefs you listed.

Dear Mhaze,

<<I think you'll find that when Yuyutsu refereed to " people who hate God" he was talking about those who hate the notion of God as well as those who hate all the institutions and ramifications of theism.>>

Sorry that I had no time to reply to David (and others) yet, I'm rather busy today and probably will not be able to answer in full until Sunday, but your assertion about my reference is incorrect.

Indeed, I admit that David is right and my reference to "haters of God" was a bit loose in language. While in my circle of friends what I meant is clearly understood the way I meant it, I failed to notice that others don't read it the same way and that's my fault.

For those who (mistakenly) think of God as either an entity; a deity; a being; or a notion, indeed hating God means something different altogether to what I meant.

What is it to me anyway if others hate an entity, a deity, a being, a notion, a bunch of institutions, theism or its ramifications? I consider that ordinary.

Perhaps I should have written instead "haters of religion", but that should not to be confused with those who hate religious doctrines and/or institutions (some or all), rather "those who hate coming closer to God", but even that is still likely to be misunderstood, so shall I say "those who hate and try to avoid that gut-feeling of coming closer to God (even while they cannot recognise it by name)"? it somehow conveys that hating God then is akin to hating spinach: one just has that aversion even if they don't recognise that green vegetable in front of them. Then of course, one could mistake God for a vegetable or an object, so it may still not carry across what I am trying to say. Let's see if I can come with a better definition/description when I have more time.

AJP, I wasn't suggesting that all atheists think theists are unevolved, unthinking. Read my original post. I was talking about the subset of atheists that rush to ridicule theists whenever OLO has a religious thread. Some among those do claim that atheists are more evolved.

Sorry but half your double post is based on a misunderstanding.

I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree on the dark matter issue. I must say however, that I admire your unbounded (or is it unfounded) faith that merely disagreeing with my point is the same as discrediting it.

There is no evidence for dark matter. It is assumed to be there because people have faith that their models of how the universe works arecorrect. No DM and their models are wrong. Are you aware that some scientists do indeed think the models are wrong and that DM doesn't exist? Equally theists have faith that their model of how the universe works is correct and that therefore the deity must exist.

I suspect you don't get this point because you are so wedded to the scientific worldview. You keep saying we don't need to insert a deity into the universe to see how it works. But at the same time you think its perfectly fine to insert something we've never seen, don't know anything about, don't know where it comes from or goes, don't know where it is, etc etc. Basically all we know is that we need it to make our models make sense. Ditto Yahweh.

Mankind is very arrogant in this regard. Each generation feels that it has a handle on how the universe works and that its only a matter of confirmation. But later generations look back and wonder just how they were so confident. We, despite our hubris, are no better. We think we've got it worked out even as we admit there may be 90% of the universe that we haven't got the faintest idea about.

A little less arrogance and a lot more "I don't know" would do the world a lot of good.

mhaze,

<<I wasn't suggesting that all atheists think theists are unevolved, unthinking. Read my original post. I was talking about the subset of atheists that rush to ridicule theists whenever OLO has a religious thread.>>

In your first post, yeah. But then read the first two paragraphs of your post to Pericles. There was a reason I quoted your second paragraph.

<<Sorry but half your double post is based on a misunderstanding.>>

Apparently not. I suggest you take more care with your wording, though.

<<I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree on the dark matter issue.>>

No, people tend to do that only when an impasse is reached; having your analogy shown to be invalid, only to repeat it later without sufficient justification as to why it IS valid, is not an impasse.

<<I must say however, that I admire your unbounded ... faith that merely disagreeing with my point is the same as discrediting it.>>

Since when have I merely disagreed with it? You do know the difference between merely disagreeing with something and demonstrating why it is wrong, don't you?

<<There is no evidence for dark matter.>>

You do know the difference between evidence and confirmation, don't you? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence)

<<It is assumed to be there because people have faith that their models of how the universe works arecorrect.>>

No, it is hypothesised that dark matter is there because that is what our observations suggest.

Again, faith is belief without good reason, and having one's models consistent with what we observe is a good reason to believe them. That they may turn out to be wrong one day is irrelevant.

So your "faith" tag is still wrong but thanks for giving me the opportunity to point out another reason as to why your dark matter analogy is wrong too.

<<You keep saying we don't need to insert a deity into the universe to see how it works. But at the same time you think its perfectly fine to insert something we've never seen...>>

Yes, and I had already explained why in the post that I linked to.