OpinionAtheists struggle to reason with theists because theists prefer to believe that things are the way they want it to be, rather than learn from evidence and logic.
      – Lee J Haywood, 2009-01-17 at 10:34:14   (14 comments)

On 2009-01-17 at 20:22:31, Baslisks wrote...
It's all about preconceived notions. I have a friend, hes a genius, he has been able to do calculus level math since he was in freshmen year of high school. he excels at hard sciences(Physics, chem, math) but from since he was little he was told that god was the reason for everything. He's incredibly logical. He won't believe any new scientific data until he sees the proof. He has always just believed in god. He doesn't exactly want it to be like that he just believes it is like that.
On 2009-01-17 at 23:40:34, Thelevellers wrote...
Couldn't have put it better myself... :)
On 2009-01-18 at 18:44:33, Lee J Haywood wrote...
I was really referring to religion rather than belief in god. If you have a philosophical argument about whether or not a god exists, then it's not at all unreasonable for someone to argue that they think one might. What is unreasonable is trying to state that some particular god exists - given the complete lack of evidence, that would come down to personal belief. It's fairly clear that most people who accept Christianity or Islam, say, do so because they've been exposed to those concepts and are surrounded by others that are already indoctrinated. People aren't born Christian, they are simply susceptible to its design of appealing to their minds and getting them to follow its rituals.
On 2009-01-18 at 20:21:14, Baslisks wrote...
He believes all the evidence is there. he believes cryptids are real and that they are just dinosaurs that have hidden themselves. He thinks a huge rock structure is the ark. He has tried to argue about tectonic plates being a ploy to discredit god. It was like arguing with my dad about the invasion of iraq. He believed be cause he was commanded to believe that it was good. Now that hes taken a step back he has changed his mind. Still supports the troops and such but not as keen to argue its pros with me anymore. He would prefer to say he fought in a just war but he now believes otherwise based on evidence. He was in the military for a long time, more then 1/2 his life. Its assumptions on both parties that lead to bad arguments. its better to approach from their side of the table and lead them to yours then to barrage them with ideals from your side only. You have to remember that you may still be wrong. Their might be fairies at the bottom of the garden and you have to acknowledge that and tell them why.
On 2009-01-18 at 23:33:33, Lee J Haywood wrote...
It sounds a bit like the discussions I've had with the Jehovah's witnesses. They claim that secular sources back up the existence of Jesus, so thus the son of the Christian god obviously existed. And if you doubt them, they'll ask if you believe that Napolean existed and why. Although it's almost an impossible task to argue with them, there simply isn't enough time in any given conversation and they eventually get bored and/or defensive. There's the question of what constitutes 'valid evidence'. Anything from history is suspect to an atheist, but strengthened by the test of time for a theist. For an atheist, the burden is on the theist to provide proof of existence and for the theist the existence is a fact to be disproved. And so on...
On 2009-01-19 at 04:45:29, Baslisks wrote...
I don't doubt there was a jesus. I sure there were a hundred jesuses(jesii?). The biblical one is the key to their argument. Meh, throw a good argument out there and you might just plant a seed.
On 2009-01-21 at 04:08:46, BorgClown wrote...
Probably the new testament is made from exaggerated histories of several of those Jesuses. Hell, Even people from the middle ages are given the legend treatment, like King Arthur. There's a similar debate about him being a real person.
On 2009-01-21 at 06:30:12, Baslisks wrote...
Saw the discovery special where they uncovered a body and then stopped the show.... Damn brain teases.
On 2009-01-21 at 09:47:48, Lee J Haywood wrote...
I guess you mean a body which was supposed to be a historic figure?
On 2009-01-21 at 22:31:24, Baslisks wrote...
@Lee J Haywood: Well, they didn't say. It was a body in a castle. Had a crown. Thats all they said.
On 2009-10-08 at 21:23:54, Bensci wrote...
They struggle to reason because both groups feel self-righteous.
On 2009-10-09 at 05:31:10, BorgClown wrote...
Good point. We atheists are self-righteous, although in all justice it takes more effort to be a self-righteous atheist than a theist, because to be a self-righteous theist you just believe blindly. How come we even have to read "The book" (there's always one for every religion) to be taken seriously, yet a theist is implicitly serious? A friend of mine (long ago) embraced scientology, and not even me reading the damned Hubbard books and showing him the inconsistencies and unrealistic promises made him question it. He left it on his own after a few months, after having paid for several expensive "courses". The whole initiation deal lasts five years, and it's not cheap.
On 2009-10-09 at 10:20:21, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@BorgClown: Reading or not reading a book makes no difference to how seriously an atheist is taken by a theist. Looking at the definition of 'self righteous', I'd say it's a lot more likely to apply to a theist than an atheist. Atheists may be convinced that they're correct, but theists are usually compelled by their religion to spread their beliefs and pity those that they feel are missing out. http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define%3Aself+righteous
On 2009-10-13 at 02:54:49, Bensci wrote...
@Lee J Haywood: What I meant by self-righteous is that, stereotypically, both atheists and theists think that they are right, and that they are in some way a better person than those that disagree with them. They both think of themselves as being more "enlightened" than the other.