• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

The two main fallacies used in justifying belief in God

/DG/

silentigata ano (profile)
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
4,602
Ha!

The invisible microscopic dragon has not been something which has been discussed and debated and driven thinkers from the very beginning of oral tradition and later written records.
I don't see how this is relevant.

I'm actually claiming nothing, it is a fact, God is, even in the act of attempting to deny, deride or disprove God, God is. If God were not there would be no discussion. Do you understand? This is not unproblematic an understanding to convey and I would suspect that you would have to have read the sources I have, considered the things I have to reach the same conclusions I have.
I'm afraid I don't quite understand. You can have discussions and debates about things that do not exist. What about bigfoot? The Loch Ness Monster? These things have been debated for a long time. "But I don't believe in those silly things!" You might say. It doesn't matter. Some people do. The point is that you can have a lengthy discussion about something that may or may not exist.

Also, you can't go out and just state something as "fact" and then provide no support to back it up. Why is the existence of God a "fact?"

Which would include masses of Jung, many of his primary sources too.
Just because someone intelligent said/believed something, doesn't make it true.

So far as the requisite further proof or explanation, I'm not sure I do, I mean maybe, sometimes, I do think that way but it is a little like a lot of open ended questions in relationships, how can one person be certain when another says to them they love them for instance? It is a case that for some there never will be sufficient evidence, while for others they do not need any to begin with. That's a basic question of belief, you do or you dont, you either can or you cant, you will struggle with that or you wont.
Here's the thing....No one claims to know for certain whether or not God exists. The point isn't about certainty on either side. Anyone who claims to know for certain that God does exist or God does not exist is being a bit silly. Of course this isn't something you can prove.

But that's not the point.

The point is taking a step back, and asking yourself what is most likely. Taking the bigfoot example, we look and have seen no decent evidence for the existence for bigfoot. Although we can never technically prove his nonexistence, we can make the conclusion that he does not exist based on lack of evidence. Technically, we can't know for certain whether or not he exists, but most deem it silly to entertain the idea that he does.

A lot of the doubts, which are articulated frequently with haughty arrogance or even cruel malice rather than simple certainty, are a form of confirmation bias and category error, there is a hope and a wish which is easily confirmed and that experience it is hoped can be transmitted as quickly and widely as any countervailing opinion or belief.
Can you elaborate on this bolded part a bit?
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
When we believe in God, we suspend our disbelief.

And when we believe in God as children, we suspend our disbelief involuntarily.

But when we believe in God as grown ups, we suspend our disbelief voluntarily.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
I don't see how this is relevant.

Well you mentioned you dragon so.

I'm afraid I don't quite understand. You can have discussions and debates about things that do not exist. What about bigfoot? The Loch Ness Monster? These things have been debated for a long time. "But I don't believe in those silly things!" You might say. It doesn't matter. Some people do. The point is that you can have a lengthy discussion about something that may or may not exist.

Yeah, I knew this would prove to be the sticking point maybe, I'm not sure how to overcome this obsticle without doing something like recommending a dozen different books. I could perhaps frame what I am saying in such a way as to make it appealing to, what I presume is your position, the mindset of a non-believer but in doing so I would only appear to be vindicating non-belief, which is not my position.

Although I would say that the existence or none existence of the things you mention bigfoot, loch ness monster etc. are not perrenial and universal, they have not emerged as points of wonder or discussion within human communities which are seperated or isolated or not in contact with one another, if you know what I mean.

Also, you can't go out and just state something as "fact" and then provide no support to back it up. Why is the existence of God a "fact?"

I believe the existence of God is fact because it is perrenial and universally featured within humankind's thinking and theorising.


Just because someone intelligent said/believed something, doesn't make it true.

I would not imply such a thing. I dont believe you understood what I wrote at all. That was not an appeal to authority, it was indicating one source among many if you were interested in how I had reached my conclusions. Maybe you're not really interested. Which is fine.


Here's the thing....No one claims to know for certain whether or not God exists. The point isn't about certainty on either side. Anyone who claims to know for certain that God does exist or God does not exist is being a bit silly. Of course this isn't something you can prove.

But that's not the point.

The point is taking a step back, and asking yourself what is most likely. Taking the bigfoot example, we look and have seen no decent evidence for the existence for bigfoot. Although we can never technically prove his nonexistence, we can make the conclusion that he does not exist based on lack of evidence. Technically, we can't know for certain whether or not he exists, but most deem it silly to entertain the idea that he does.

Yeah, I'm familiar with the whole probably but not likely idea, I've read about it in relation to rationalisations made during the cold war about the power and intent of the superpowers.

In relation to the God discussion, presently the existence of God appears unlikely or even absurd, at another time and place the opposite would have been self-evident, I do not believe that this is a result of leaps and bounds in science or philosophy but instead corresponds to public mood or culture which does not foster any kind of belief generally, there are a lot of different reasons for this I would suggest, some of them political trends, a lot of them underpinned by economic and social changes but really anything which is going to be demanding or involve obligations or from which consequences will stem is not something people are going to be that interested in finding out is fact or evidencing.


Can you elaborate on this bolded part a bit?

People who do not wish to believe in things and who are more comfortable with disbelief or non-belief will seek to have that confirmed in their researches, I know it can cut both ways but those who disbelieve in things are inclined to present this as logical and rational and devoid of any cognitive bias whereas the believing mind is explained as completely corresponding to or arising from cognitive bias.

Category errors are when you explain one thing with reference to another of a different kind as though there were equivalence when there is not. Like comparisons between big foot, the loch ness monster and God.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
When we believe in God, we suspend our disbelief.

And when we believe in God as children, we suspend our disbelief involuntarily.

But when we believe in God as grown ups, we suspend our disbelief voluntarily.

I didnt suspend my disbelief involuntarily while I was a child. On the basis of my experience alone this is bunk. Why do you speak with authority you dont have Victor? Where's your research?
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
Thinking that there had to be a beginning is putting the divine into a little pill that a human can swallow. But in doing so they limit and confine it, and leave a lot of it out.

Notice how God had to create the earth. Not only did he have to create it but it took him time to do it. They go into detail about how God did things in a specific order in a specific time. They did this to encapsulate things for tiny minds that could not understand dimensions or voids or other levels of being, minds that could only have their illusion of reality and not realize an abstract model. This is seriously placing shackles on God.

Aristotle posited the unmoved mover. But this does not mean the Abrahamic God, or any god. Aristotle's unmoved mover is not a creator. It does not live in heaven. It is in void - it is nothing. It has no place, it has no time, it has no self. It does not create. They cannot directly interact with matter because they have no physical being.

The unmoved mover does not move, yet allows things to be moved. It was not the first cause. Things end up being infinite regardless, if nothing comes from nothing. Humans could not conceive of the universe having no beginning. It is full of death and change - change is the only constant.

Humans did not understand though that they did not solve the problem of where things begin. They could not accept an infinite universe so they came up with an infinite God, without realizing that they are possibly one and the same. There is still no real beginning from nothing - they just placed non-beginning onto God because they felt more comfortable with it there for some reason.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
i don't think it works like that - in my life time, i do not believe i have ever met an adult monotheist who declared "o creationism is just my opinion about the universe, show me that god is not the most plausible explanation and i'll just change my mind".
Yes, many suffer from closed-minded certitude.

now reason and various argument might be there to justify the faith, but as far as i can tell, faith isn't dependent on either, and honestly, its the religious people who have the awareness and inner strength to simply state it and face it in its most naked raw form inside of them, the one who can hold onto it even when they understand how M theory can dismiss the need for a creator on mathematical levels which are beyond me, the ones who study the extreme questions of consciousness through neurology and somehow believe in souls, the ones who house faith in their inner workings and need no relay on dogma's or excuses... those are the ones i can't help but respect their faith without the slightest bit of forced PC etiquette or sarcasm.
If scientific theory can answer a question, that question is outside the realm of faith. We don't need to believe what can be proven. Believing what has been disproven is just willful ignorance or outright idiocy.

i mean, how can you find that human capacity to be anything but beautifully brilliant?
There is an essential humility, perhaps, in the human capacity to envision a being on such a higher level than ourselves. There definitely is some innate human tendency to identify and relate to deity or some higher power, though that says much more about us than that higher power.

I agree with the OP. items 1 & 2 are specious arguments as presented. However, according to the Christian faith God's gift is free will. Thus to the rational individual no proof can exist for God since that proof would compel acceptance. The basis for faith is subjective belief that is not objective truth. However, the rational mind may be predisposed towards belief in God since this mind insists on order the logical extension of which is a unified theory. With increased sophistication using inductive reasoning this will become increasingly obvious, as patterns are detected in apparently independent observations. Why else would an otherwise rational thinker like Jung declare publically I know that God exists and fail to present proofs.
No proof can exist for God because the existence of God is not falsifiable. It cannot be proven or disproven. Faith is exactly that: believing in something despite the absence of proof. I have it myself, but would not attempt to justify its contents on rational grounds. I justify my having it on the rational principle of utility.

Humans did not understand though that they did not solve the problem of where things begin. They could not accept an infinite universe so they came up with an infinite God, without realizing that they are possibly one and the same. There is still no real beginning from nothing - they just placed non-beginning onto God because they felt more comfortable with it there for some reason.
I like this.
 

Polaris

AKA Nunki
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
2,529
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
God would be an existence that serves as the foundation for all existences, including himself; God would leave not a single facet of reality unsupported. That there is negation in the universe means that no such being exists, because negation cannot be derived from existing things, not even a supreme being. Existing things are in themselves, and as a whole, positive, and one is helpless to derive a void from the positive: what is full is full, not empty. Even if one speaks of negations in positive language (e.g. "There is a void in his life."), in doing so, one is really using negations (to speak of a void is to speak of an absent presence, a positive rendered negative). On the other hand, existence can be derived from nothingness, because the negation of a negation is an affirmation. That isn't to say that nothingness caused or even could have caused the universe: nothingness lacks creative power. It is to say that the universe can be described as not nothing; it is negation in the form of negating negation: the universe is not negation. That is the same thing as to say that the universe is a positivity, all over again, and it puts into relief the fact that positivity doesn't merely sometimes coincide with negativity but actually assumes negativity. One could not possibly get rid of negativity and thereby create a supreme being without any lacks about it, for getting rid of negativity is just what gives rise to positivity, which as I said, assumes negativity. Even if one were to get all the negations out of the universe, and put them outside of it as a pure negation of reality in general, opposite to a homogeneous positivity which is at least within its confines free of fractures and limitations, this positivity would still be lacking the traits of God. It would have no self consciousness and no origin at all, much less one determined by itself, because selfhood and causation, like all existing things, both entail negation: self-awareness requires a distancing from oneself, and an origin is a moment disconnected from the present. And even if it could somehow possess these traits in the absence of negation within itself, it would not be able to equate itself to the negation outside of it; it would not be able to say "I am nothing" for that would destroy it; its existence would be entirely dependent on it not being nothing. A god's existence would depend on nothing; this being's existence would depend on itself. That, of course, introduces an inherent self-relation that must exist within any existing thing (since the type of existence I just described would be the simplest, most primordial kind possible), for which reason not even an infinitely simple singularity could exist; such a singularity must be, as soon as it comes to exist, already divided from itself by its own self-dependence.
 

Aesthete

Gone
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
384
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
1w2
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Let us not forget the worst of them "I believe in God because it comforts me". While I am glad that somebody is comforted by a belief in God, it is best to see the truth beyond some rosy picture. I believe in the existence of God, but hardly because it comforts me; to be honest, it might be the opposite of comfort.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Let us not forget the worst of them "I believe in God because it comforts me". While I am glad that somebody is comforted by a belief in God, it is best to see the truth beyond some rosy picture. I believe in the existence of God, but hardly because it comforts me; to be honest, it might be the opposite of comfort.
But this is the equivalent of saying, "I prefer chocolate ice cream because it tastes good". It identifies faith as a highly subjective and personal choice, which it is. It is the believers who attempt to justify their faith using objective criteria who are the worst. They pretend (or actually see) faith to be something it is not.
 

Aesthete

Gone
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
384
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
1w2
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
But this is the equivalent of saying, "I prefer chocolate ice cream because it tastes good". It identifies faith as a highly subjective and personal choice, which it is. It is the believers who attempt to justify their faith using objective criteria who are the worst. They pretend (or actually see) faith to be something it is not.

Oops! I didn't phrase what I meant properly. It is true that faith is often--if not always--a product of that--and the same applies to "non-faith", Atheism, which is really still faith--but that cannot be used to prove God. Questions along the lines of "Can you prove the existence of God?", while they are idiotic per se and are best left unanswered, cannot be answered by "As it gives me comfort, it must be real". The question "Can you disprove the existence of God?", in a similar fashion, cannot be answered by saying "As it gives me comfort that any action I do now will not be eternally under probation, it must be real." or by "Well, how come I haven't seen, smelled or touched God if he exists?".
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
I didnt suspend my disbelief involuntarily while I was a child. On the basis of my experience alone this is bunk. Why do you speak with authority you dont have Victor? Where's your research?

These are interesting questions.

The last I can dispose of easily as this is not a research journal and so research is not called for.

But 'why do I speak with authority' is more interesting.

I speak as an oracle. I simply describe what I see.

And what I see may be right or wrong, silly or profound, in good or bad taste.

So I share with you what I see without a critical filter. And this is where you come in. You apply your excellent critical mind to what I see.

And the critical mind is part of the digestion process of analysis, evaluation and integration - so we can be free again to see the world afresh.

Bon appetit!
 

/DG/

silentigata ano (profile)
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
4,602
Well you mentioned you dragon so.
No, I meant that I don't see how it matters that people haven't debated over my example for ages. Is Russell's teapot a better example for you then?

Although I would say that the existence or none existence of the things you mention bigfoot, loch ness monster etc. are not perrenial and universal, they have not emerged as points of wonder or discussion within human communities which are seperated or isolated or not in contact with one another, if you know what I mean.

I believe the existence of God is fact because it is perrenial and universally featured within humankind's thinking and theorising.
But why does it make them any less relevant if they are not widely discussed or thought of in "wonder?" A sense of wonder does not imply a higher power is involved. I experience wonder when staring up into the night sky or when studying anatomy (and so have many others since the beginning of humanity), but I do not regard either of these things as divine. Outer space, especially, has been a large topic of debate and wonder.

I would not imply such a thing. I dont believe you understood what I wrote at all. That was not an appeal to authority, it was indicating one source among many if you were interested in how I had reached my conclusions. Maybe you're not really interested. Which is fine.
My apologies. I took your comment the wrong way.

Yeah, I'm familiar with the whole probably but not likely idea, I've read about it in relation to rationalisations made during the cold war about the power and intent of the superpowers.

In relation to the God discussion, presently the existence of God appears unlikely or even absurd, at another time and place the opposite would have been self-evident, I do not believe that this is a result of leaps and bounds in science or philosophy but instead corresponds to public mood or culture which does not foster any kind of belief generally, there are a lot of different reasons for this I would suggest, some of them political trends, a lot of them underpinned by economic and social changes but really anything which is going to be demanding or involve obligations or from which consequences will stem is not something people are going to be that interested in finding out is fact or evidencing.
While this is an interesting idea, I do not agree that it is true.

In humanity's humble beginnings, very little was known about the universe. What did man do when he didn't know something? He made up a clever tale that seemed to make sense. These typically, but not necessarily, had to do with some sort of deity. We used to think Zeus caused lighting and thunderstorms before we learned about combinations of air currents and moisture. We used to think Helios caused the Sun to rise every morning before we found out the Sun doesn't rise and instead the Earth revolves around it (as well as simply rotating to cause day and night). We thought that disease was caused by demons and spirits until germs were discovered. As time goes on, there seems to be less and less of a need for these deities. Now the monotheistic religions seem to come in because there really isn't a need for more than one god. While I don't know if this monotheism will ever progress to atheism, it does seem that over time humanity believes in a lesser amount of gods and actions made by gods because of advances in knowledge rather than political and cultural change.

People who do not wish to believe in things and who are more comfortable with disbelief or non-belief will seek to have that confirmed in their researches, I know it can cut both ways but those who disbelieve in things are inclined to present this as logical and rational and devoid of any cognitive bias whereas the believing mind is explained as completely corresponding to or arising from cognitive bias.
I'd like to emphasize your bolded point. Both of us are not likely to come to an agreement, so we can agree to disagree. :) Although I'd just like to say I considered myself a Christian when I joined these forums a few years ago. Maybe you will eventually switch your stance and maybe you won't. Conversely, maybe I will convert back to Christianity. (Although I find this far less likely considering atheism was a conscious choice for me, rather than the Christianity that was instilled upon me from birth.)

I think the reason many nonbelievers view belief as irrational is because of the burden of proof. This states that if you make a claim, it is upon you to prove that claim. The claim is that X exists. Although it may be possible to prove the non-existence of X in certain cases, here it is not possible. Therefore, the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim to prove X (X may be God, Russell's teapot, or something else with similar properties.) If we make X=God, then you start to see a bit of a problem. This is due to the fact that the original claim made was that "God exists." "God does not exist" was not the original claim and therefore does not need to be proved. We can say that "God does not exist" is not the original claim because it is the default position. Consider a newborn. Do they no of any gods? No. The adult then makes the "God exists" claim.

Although I can again see where you may disagree, but I will try to explain further if you wish.

Category errors are when you explain one thing with reference to another of a different kind as though there were equivalence when there is not. Like comparisons between big foot, the loch ness monster and God.
Yes, but I fail to see how these are category errors. They are all alike in that none of them can be proven or disproven. I know you obviously disagree with me on this.
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
When we believe in God, we suspend our disbelief.

And when we believe in God as children, we suspend our disbelief involuntarily.

But when we believe in God as grown ups, we suspend our disbelief voluntarily.

What about Father Christmas?

And Jack Skellington? Dont tell me those arent real...pah...I scoff at the silliness of it.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
I'd also like to point out that one cannot choose true belief.

One either believes something or does not, or is undecided perhaps, or doesn't believe strongly, but these aren't choices either regardless.

One can choose to say that they believe, and act like they believe, perhaps because they think this is what is best, but this does not mean that they fully believe something to be true.

Internal doubt is not uncommon, and frankly, I don't think it is enough to only proclaim belief. It's like trusting someone who you believe is a criminal and might stab you in the back, for whatever reason. Maybe you trust them because you need to, and you must act as if they will not stab you in the back because it is better than some alternative, but somewhere inside, your belief is still that they will stab you. You're just ignoring it for the time being.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
No, I meant that I don't see how it matters that people haven't debated over my example for ages. Is Russell's teapot a better example for you then?


But why does it make them any less relevant if they are not widely discussed or thought of in "wonder?" A sense of wonder does not imply a higher power is involved. I experience wonder when staring up into the night sky or when studying anatomy (and so have many others since the beginning of humanity), but I do not regard either of these things as divine. Outer space, especially, has been a large topic of debate and wonder.


My apologies. I took your comment the wrong way.


While this is an interesting idea, I do not agree that it is true.

In humanity's humble beginnings, very little was known about the universe. What did man do when he didn't know something? He made up a clever tale that seemed to make sense. These typically, but not necessarily, had to do with some sort of deity. We used to think Zeus caused lighting and thunderstorms before we learned about combinations of air currents and moisture. We used to think Helios caused the Sun to rise every morning before we found out the Sun doesn't rise and instead the Earth revolves around it (as well as simply rotating to cause day and night). We thought that disease was caused by demons and spirits until germs were discovered. As time goes on, there seems to be less and less of a need for these deities. Now the monotheistic religions seem to come in because there really isn't a need for more than one god. While I don't know if this monotheism will ever progress to atheism, it does seem that over time humanity believes in a lesser amount of gods and actions made by gods because of advances in knowledge rather than political and cultural change.


I'd like to emphasize your bolded point. Both of us are not likely to come to an agreement, so we can agree to disagree. :) Although I'd just like to say I considered myself a Christian when I joined these forums a few years ago. Maybe you will eventually switch your stance and maybe you won't. Conversely, maybe I will convert back to Christianity. (Although I find this far less likely considering atheism was a conscious choice for me, rather than the Christianity that was instilled upon me from birth.)

I think the reason many nonbelievers view belief as irrational is because of the burden of proof. This states that if you make a claim, it is upon you to prove that claim. The claim is that X exists. Although it may be possible to prove the non-existence of X in certain cases, here it is not possible. Therefore, the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim to prove X (X may be God, Russell's teapot, or something else with similar properties.) If we make X=God, then you start to see a bit of a problem. This is due to the fact that the original claim made was that "God exists." "God does not exist" was not the original claim and therefore does not need to be proved. We can say that "God does not exist" is not the original claim because it is the default position. Consider a newborn. Do they no of any gods? No. The adult then makes the "God exists" claim.

Although I can again see where you may disagree, but I will try to explain further if you wish.


Yes, but I fail to see how these are category errors. They are all alike in that none of them can be proven or disproven. I know you obviously disagree with me on this.

All I can suggest to you is that you read Mark Vernon on God or Humanism and Hans Kung's books about Christianity.

There's a couple of other books I'd recommend too, Erich Fromm's You Shall Be As Gods (or a similar title, I always get it wrong) for instance, although Fromm's book for instance is actually an atheist book and affirms an atheistic version of God, if you can believe that, its a very interesting idea but given the common character structure of most new atheists (which I think resemble the pessimists which Josha Loth Liebman writes about) I doubt the idea will ever catch on.
 

/DG/

silentigata ano (profile)
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
4,602
All I can suggest to you is that you read Mark Vernon on God or Humanism and Hans Kung's books about Christianity.

There's a couple of other books I'd recommend too, Erich Fromm's You Shall Be As Gods (or a similar title, I always get it wrong) for instance, although Fromm's book for instance is actually an atheist book and affirms an atheistic version of God, if you can believe that, its a very interesting idea but given the common character structure of most new atheists (which I think resemble the pessimists which Josha Loth Liebman writes about) I doubt the idea will ever catch on.

So you're just going to ignore everything I said then?

I could recommend numerous books for you as well if we're going to play this game. The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens are two big ones that come to mind.

Why is your logic so complex that I must read numerous books on it? Can you not simply tell me in your own words why belief makes more sense than nonbelief?
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
So you're just going to ignore everything I said then?

I could recommend numerous books for you as well if we're going to play this game. The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens are two big ones that come to mind.

Why is your logic so complex that I must read numerous books on it? Can you not simply tell me in your own words why belief makes more sense than nonbelief?

No, I'm not ignoring what you said.

I thought you were interested in trying to understand the views I had already stated.

I havent read Hitchens but I hate him as an author and Dawkins, what I've read of him, is awful too. Its very easy to understand the new athiest mindset and there is no depth to it, so it is unlikely that any reading would really be needed to understand it. It is popular and widespread, especially among younger people, but then so are tabloids.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
So you're just going to ignore everything I said then?

I could recommend numerous books for you as well if we're going to play this game. The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens are two big ones that come to mind.

Why is your logic so complex that I must read numerous books on it? Can you not simply tell me in your own words why belief makes more sense than nonbelief?

No, I'm not ignoring what you said.

I thought you were interested in trying to understand the views I had already stated.

I havent read Hitchens but I hate him as an author and Dawkins, what I've read of him, is awful too. Its very easy to understand the new athiest mindset and there is no depth to it, so it is unlikely that any reading would really be needed to understand it. It is popular and widespread, especially among younger people, but then so are tabloids.
 

/DG/

silentigata ano (profile)
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
4,602
No, I'm not ignoring what you said.
Well you certainly seem to be.

I thought you were interested in trying to understand the views I had already stated.
I wanted you to put your views in your own words, not recommend the words of other people to me.

I havent read Hitchens but I hate him as an author and Dawkins, what I've read of him, is awful too. Its very easy to understand the new athiest mindset and there is no depth to it, so it is unlikely that any reading would really be needed to understand it. It is popular and widespread, especially among younger people, but then so are tabloids.
I'd hardly call your view any deeper than mine, nor do I think it is difficult to understand why some people believe.
 
Top