One of the saddest things about apologists for religion is how they will abandon every basic standard that people might normally use in their lives in order to find a way to justify religion. Clearly religion can't be justified according to any normal moral, metaphysical, or epistemological standard, so special standards have to be created. The normal rules of evidence, belief, and argument must all be tossed in the trash just to salvage something for religion.
LifeUniStudent: it is unreasonable to claim absolutely that something doesn't exist if you can't prove it, regardless of probability.
LifeUniStudent: to say 'God does not exist' is unreasonable. To say, 'i don't believe God exists' is fine.
LifeUniStudent: if you accept it is possible, then you can't then say 'X doesn't exist', only that you don't believe it does.
LifeUniStudent: people who say 'there is no God' cannot know that for sure, so are not making sense.
Of course, it's always possible to reasonably deny that something exists -- it just depends on the circumstances. You can't make such a statement about every possible or alleged thing, but you can make it about some alleged things. We can, for example, deny absolutely that square circles and married bachelors exist. Such a denial is not unreasonable. Such a denial makes perfect sense.
This isn't the least bit controversial; the only debate or disagreement involves what, exactly, we can make such denials about -- that is to say, when such denials are reasonable and when they aren't. Maybe @LifeUniStudent eventually realized that and that's why they deleted all their messages about this -- perhaps it just became too embarrassing to have such statements in the public record.
LifeUniStudent: You seriously think i should apply the same principles to fairies and religion?
LifeUniStudent: the fairies/God comparison is made to diminish religion, not make a serious point.
LifeUniStudent: unicorns are horses with points, invented for fiction, and as such do not require the belief discussion.
Most apologists get upset when their favored religious beliefs are compared to other beliefs which people generally reject as false. Unfortunately they never offer any good reasons for disputing the analogies and @LifeUniStudent is no better.
Yes, any sane and rational adult should apply the same epistemological standards to a claim that fairies exist, to a claim that unicorns exist, and to a claim that gods exist. There's no reason to adopt lower and less rigorous standards for gods than for other alleged entities.
Contrary to what @LifeUniStudent has learned as a "student," people really did once believe in fairies and unicorns. They weren't "invented for fiction," they were serious and sincere beliefs at one time. Some people still seem to believe in them. Why should the sincere beliefs of theists today be treated differently?
LifeUniStudent: look, i can't rule anything in or out, anything is possible. that is my position.
LifeUniStudent: in religion, i must accept that scientology, hinduism or anything else COULD be right. not is, but COULD.
Of course, they can't all be right so if any are right then all the rest are wrong -- and it's far more likely that they are all wrong than that any one of them happens to be exactly correct. That's the most rational position to adopt and that's also why any burden of support rests entirely with those making the claims. So long as they are unable or unwilling to provide good reasons to believe them, their system should be dismissed. It's a waste of time to worry about how they "could" be true.
LifeUniStudent: it's my opinion that you're stupid to say 'Gods do not exist'.
LifeUniStudent: Atheism is stupid was my point.
LifeUniStudent: it is true that there may be no god, but to say it categorically is stupid
What's amusing is that @LifeUniStudent says they don't believe in any gods which automatically makes them an atheist. For some strange reason, though, they are in denial about that fact. Does this have anything to do with the need to attack atheism while apologizing for religion? Perhaps.
Notice that @LifeUniStudent doesn't declare it "categorically stupid" to assert that a religion is true. Thus Hinduism "could be right" and it's fine to assert that it is right, but while gods may not exist it's "categorically stupid" to assert that gods don't exist. The hypocrisy is almost palpable.
It's also nothing new -- we always see apologists for religion and theism insisting on one set of standards for themselves and another for atheists. It's OK for religious believers to say whatever they want and criticize others all they want, but it's rude for atheists to speak out. It's OK for religious believers to form student groups but it's wrong for gays or atheists to try. It's OK for churches to buy ads, but it's wrong for atheists to have ads on billboards of buses.
LifeUniStudent: some people need to be certain, i accept God may or may not exist, but dislike those who attack the faith of others.
Well, @LifeUniStudent is obviously certain of the rightness of their own position, so it's not certainty they dislike -- only certainty in others who have different viewpoints. What's more, it's also clear that @LifeUniStudent has no problem with attacks -- thus the claims that "atheism is stupid." It's only attacks on religious beliefs which @LifeUniStudent objects to. And why? I never got an answer on that.
No comments:
Post a Comment