Creationists hijack lessons

[ninwa]

Hitler didn't believe in God and look what happened in Nazi Germany. Therefore, we should believe in God. Also, Pascal's wager and the ontological proof.

# ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) I define God to be X.
(2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

# ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) I can conceive of a perfect God.
(2) One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

# MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) God is either necessary or unnecessary.
(2) God is not unnecessary, therefore God must be necessary.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

# PASCAL'S ARGUMENT, a.k.a. PASCAL'S WAGER (I)
(1) If God exists, it would be really cool.  (And I would win big-time.)
(2) If God didn't exist, it would really suck.  (But I wouldn't lose much.)
(3) Thus I should believe in God because it's the best bet.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

# MARILYN'S ARGUMENT FROM COVERED BUTT, a.k.a. PASCAL'S WAGER (III)
(1) It's not about proof.
(2) It's about covering your butt.
(3) I'd rather have my butt covered than get caught with my pants down, if you get my drift.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM RISK AVERSION, a.k.a. PASCAL'S WAGER (IV)
(1) Some people said I’d suffer for eternity if I don’t believe in God.
(2) I don’t like risks, no matter how minute.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM NAZIISM (INVERSE-GODWIN)
(1) Hitler didn't establish a Christian theocracy.
(2) Therefore, Hitler was an atheist.
(3) Hitler was the worst leader possible.
(4) Therefore, all atheists are bad people.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM NAZI DECEPTION
(1) Hitler and his Nazis were atheists.
(2) Yes, they fooled a lot of people into thinking they were Christians.  That was propaganda.  They were atheists.
(3) This proves that atheists are the masters of deception.
(4) Revelation says that the antichrist will deceive people.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM NAZI EVIL
(1) Hitler and his Nazis were atheists.
(2) I don't care what the historical evidence says about their being Christians.  Christians cannot be evil, and only atheists would be capable of the Holocaust.
(3) So Nazis, like all truly evil people, are atheists.
(4) Therefore, all atheists are truly evil.  They must be servants of Satan.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM NEGATIVE DIVINE JUSTICE (I)
(1) If there is no God, then Hitler and Stalin were never punished for the evil that they did.
(2) There would be no Divine Justice for them, and this is not acceptable.
(3) Only God could give us Divine Justice.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

Okay I will also stop "threadshitting" now (cool word)

[lynt.br]

Because the discussion has sort of gone in this direction, I'm going to re-quote some correspondence I had with a friend. Maybe it will provide some interesting discussion points.

First off, atheism is defined as "lack of a belief that a God/deity exists". This is different to "a belief that a God/deity does not exist" (although it is similar, and is, confusingly, still atheism). The latter is a claim for non-existence, and therefore has a burden of proof associated with it, while the former is a rejection of arguments that attempt to satisfy the burden of proof of the claim that a God/deity does exist.

There are naming issues with differentiating the two beliefs, because both are forms of atheism, but the most common is weak/strong atheism, with weak atheism being the "lack of a belief that a God/deity exists" and strong atheism being "a belief that a God/deity does not exist". Thus, strong atheism has a burden of proof, and weak atheism doesn't.

Agnosticism and atheism are not incompatible, as agnosticism states that it is impossible to know if a God/deity exists, while atheism states that you do not believe that a God/deity exists - absolute knowledge is different to belief. Agnosticism also applies differently to the different definitions of God, which means that you can have separate positions on each definition of God that you come across, ie. from each of the major religions, which all define God differently. Adding gnostic/agnostic to your position about a certain God mostly comes down to how that God is defined and how much you personally know about that definition of God. You can't be gnostic with regards to a God you know nothing or little about.

As such, speaking about my own position, I'm a gnostic strong atheist when it comes to biblically-defined versions of the Christian God, due to the logical contradictions that rule them out from possibly existing, meaning that I can know that they do not exist, and I believe that they do not.

But when it comes to other deities that I've never really thought about, such as Allah or the various Hindu gods, I'm an agnostic weak atheist, because I can't form a certain (gnostic) position about their existence due to the fact that I don't know enough about them, and that I simply do not hold the belief that they exist, much like I don't hold the belief that aliens are in orbit around the Earth, invisible and undetectable due to their advanced cloaking technology.

So, to actually directly answer your first question, "atheism" only makes a leap of faith when you are a strong atheist without fulfilling the burden of proof that such a position demands, as weak atheism has no burden of proof, so it's impossible to make a leap of faith.

To answer the second question, disbelief is not the same as saying that it does not exist - disbelief is the weak atheistic position, while saying that it does not exist is the strong atheistic position (and it would also stray into gnostic territory if you're professing knowledge, rather than just your own belief).

So the point made is both incorrect and correct - atheism isn't just saying "there is no God" (most atheists would be weak atheists), but there is a faith-like element in the strong atheistic position IF IT'S UNJUSTIFIED. Note that it's impossible to make a blanket, justified position about all Gods, so a leap of faith is involved if someone says "There are definitely no Gods", but if someone says "This specific definition of God does not exist, and here's why" then it's perfectly reasonable.

In short, you can be a weak atheist with regard to all possible Gods without a leap of faith, and you'd probably find, if you investigated, that most people that define themselves as atheists would fall under the weak atheist label. Simplistically saying that all atheists make the same leap of faith that (probably?) most theists do is a bit irresponsible in my book.

[10weid]

what i was trying to say, and it is not a 'ridiculous claim' is that when it comes to metaphysics, u cant just apply the laws of physics to ideas...
morals are metaphysical, and the greatest philosphers in history have all tried to 'prove' ehtics such as the immorality of murder (such as Hobbs, Kant, Plaot), but none have been able to prove it.

so until you can prove a moral to me, or prove to me that god does NOT exist, i contend that you cannot prove anything when it comes to physics

how about you guys keep hangning out on this site long after ur own schooling has ifnished, trying to help people still in VCE to get high study scores, ill belive in my god, and u can belive whatever you want?

[ninwa]

Okay what the hell are you talking about? Did you even read the thread? The issue was never whether god exists or not. The issue wasn't even science vs. religion until Yitzi made the claim that all science comes from the Torah and then couldn't even back that claim up.

It's pure hypocrisy to go on about "let us believe what we believe you can't attack us blahblahblah" and yet condone a blatant attack on what we (atheists and agnostics) believe in (i.e. science). Nice try at self-victimising. Btw, in case you hadn't noticed, this is the "general discussion" section. Plenty of helping of VCE students happens in the VCE section.

I have no problem with faith. I was speaking to someone who was trying to convert me the other day. I asked him for any proof of a higher being and he straight out said "I have none, it is all faith". I respect religious people like him and admire them for their faith (and he and I have had some really interesting, civil convos about religion since then).

But I have zero respect for those, like you, who at the end of a 7-thread discussion in which a religious person is trying to prove something, then turns around and cries about "you can't question our beliefs because they are unprovable". Don't give me that crap if you're going to make ridiculous and easily challengeable claims in the first place.

[Yitzi_K]

Actually, the issue was science v religion from post #1.

[enwiabe]

Nah, I'd say post #5

[m@tty]

Nah, I'd say post #5

Seriously? The first post was about a religious person teaching science that is not concordant with evidence and also making some fairly stupid scientific claims.

i.e. Religion vs. Science.

[kamil9876]

No because magical dinosaur repellent spells are not part of religion last time I checked.

[ninwa]

Nah, I'd say post #5

Seriously? The first post was about a religious person teaching science that is not concordant with evidence and also making some fairly stupid scientific claims.

i.e. Religion vs. Science.

You call creationism science? And magical spells religion?

[Cthulhu]

No because magical dinosaur repellent spells are not part of religion last time I checked.

Well then you haven't heard of dinosaurianity. They believe God was giant T-Rex named Jason from the Cretacious period who dragged a giant meteor towards the earth and destroyed all life in the world. He stomped his foot and the grand canyon formed. These dinosaurians believe that Jason will some day return to destroy the earth and make it habital for dinosaurs from outer-space to come and inhabit the planet. To prevent this from happening a mystic dinosaurian invented a spell to repel Jason.

Of course this is all bogus because everyone knows God was an Amphicoelias named Adrian.

[Russ]

You call creationism science? And magical spells religion?

I'd call creationism science. Not particularly good science, but still.

[enwiabe]

You call creationism science? And magical spells religion?

I'd call creationism science. Not particularly good science, but still.

It does not obey Scientific method, and many of its major proponents even cynically attempt to abuse the scientific method to support their claims. It is not science - it cannot even be classed as a "poor science". If you want to include it in a sentence with science, perhaps try

"Creationism is an insult to science and, further, reason."

[Mao]

No because magical dinosaur repellent spells are not part of religion last time I checked.

Well then you haven't heard of dinosaurianity. They believe God was giant T-Rex named Jason from the Cretacious period who dragged a giant meteor towards the earth and destroyed all life in the world. He stomped his foot and the grand canyon formed. These dinosaurians believe that Jason will some day return to destroy the earth and make it habital for dinosaurs from outer-space to come and inhabit the planet. To prevent this from happening a mystic dinosaurian invented a spell to repel Jason.

Of course this is all bogus because everyone knows God was an Amphicoelias named Adrian.

God is clearly my cat Sophie who created the universe last thursday. Contrary to popular [and wrong] belief, the universe was not created by my neighbour's cat on last tuesday. It was definitely last thursday.

[Cthulhu]

No because magical dinosaur repellent spells are not part of religion last time I checked.

Well then you haven't heard of dinosaurianity. They believe God was giant T-Rex named Jason from the Cretacious period who dragged a giant meteor towards the earth and destroyed all life in the world. He stomped his foot and the grand canyon formed. These dinosaurians believe that Jason will some day return to destroy the earth and make it habital for dinosaurs from outer-space to come and inhabit the planet. To prevent this from happening a mystic dinosaurian invented a spell to repel Jason.

Of course this is all bogus because everyone knows God was an Amphicoelias named Adrian.

God is clearly my cat Sophie who created the universe last thursday. Contrary to popular [and wrong] belief, the universe was not created by my neighbour's cat on last tuesday. It was definitely last thursday.

Sophie is a reincarnation of Adrian! The end is near!!!!!!!! Run away!

[/0]

No because magical dinosaur repellent spells are not part of religion last time I checked.

Well then you haven't heard of dinosaurianity. They believe God was giant T-Rex named Jason from the Cretacious period who dragged a giant meteor towards the earth and destroyed all life in the world. He stomped his foot and the grand canyon formed. These dinosaurians believe that Jason will some day return to destroy the earth and make it habital for dinosaurs from outer-space to come and inhabit the planet. To prevent this from happening a mystic dinosaurian invented a spell to repel Jason.

Of course this is all bogus because everyone knows God was an Amphicoelias named Adrian.

God is clearly my cat Sophie who created the universe last thursday. Contrary to popular [and wrong] belief, the universe was not created by my neighbour's cat on last tuesday. It was definitely last thursday.

Is Sophie by any chance... looooong?

The prophets have long foretold of an epic battle between longcat and tacgnol, the anti-longcat. Could it be... that Sophie hasn't shown her true powers yet? Hurrah! The rapture is coming my brethren!