Comments on: Believing in one less God is actually a pretty big deal

By: Hang

Hang — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 08:20:04 +0000

You realize I'm atheist right?

By: Sokratesz

Sokratesz — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 00:47:11 +0000

Yeah, believing in a god is signifcantly more stupid than believing in no god, you sure got that one right.

By: Mike Parker

Mike Parker — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 00:06:27 +0000

Nice try, but your argument fails. When you say “When you dismiss all Gods, you are claiming that there is no religious experience to require explanations for,” you fail to understand the basic scientific facts about religious experience. Religious experience is a special, complex event in human brains. It's real and atheism doesn't entail denying it. The god experience is distinct from god concepts or explanations for that experience. You can consult Michael Persinger's book “Neuropsychological Bases of God Beliefs” for a brilliant, clear elaboration on this distinction.

I'm an atheist but it's only a matter of semantics whether I believe that no gods exist or I believe that every god exists because the true nature of god is a concept in at least one person's brain, and concepts are real, physical processes that exist as much as photosynthesis or rainstorms. I like to say that I believe in every god that anyone has ever believed in.

By: david

david — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:59:56 +0000

There are several discrepencies in your logic… comparing the existence of an omniscient and omnipotent being to the existence of a playwright is ignorant at best. For one thing we know shakespeare once lived, he was real, whether or not he penned all those beautiful sonnets, I do not know, however, that may be a more valid discussion. But, we know they were written by a man, and most likely an existing one. Comparing an event to a man is invalid, I suppose you could employ popular (il) logic and say, I haven’t seen it, but I feel it, or I feel the wtc towers are still there, it is a fact that they are not. Now apply that to a god… I feel there is a god, as do most people, but I cannot prove it in any %. Or, I know there is not a god because there is no evidence of one. Quit being stupid, think for
yourself.

By: Jarred

Jarred — Wed, 13 May 2009 23:25:18 +0000

Yeah, your giving into logical fallacy called straw man argument. Instead of addressing the argument (which you should) you instead try and make the argument you dislike so absurd that it seems stupid. Instead, ask yourself if you do understand why, exactly, you deny all other possible gods. It really isn’t hard.

By: John

John — Sun, 10 May 2009 21:47:13 +0000

All you are doing is replacing words with other words. Doing that with anything completely changes the meaning and so your argument has no actual points.

By: BasilBasington

BasilBasington — Sun, 03 May 2009 07:51:08 +0000

And for the Shakespeare parable to work, it would have to be:

“I contend that we both believe certain works of Shakespeare were not written by a man named William Shakespeare. I just believe in fewer works being written by a man named William Shakespeare than you. When you understand why you don’t believe [works here] was written by a man named William Shakespeare, you will understand why I don’t believe [work here] was.”

This still doesn’t work, however, because there may be different circumstances why you don’t believe certain works were written by Shakespeare than with others (e.g. some might have a different language style/prose used indicating different authorship, and for others manuscripts may have been found with different authors indicating they had written it under the name Shakespeare). In the original quote, the circumstances for not believing in another god such as Zues or Thor are the EXACT SAME circumstances for not believing in Yahweh.

By: BasilBasington

BasilBasington — Sun, 03 May 2009 07:39:03 +0000

In the original quote, the words “we are both atheists” means “we both don’t believe in gods”. It was a one-liner, you can’t take it at face value.

For a 9/11 parable to make sense, you would have to say something like “I contend we are both conspiracy theorists about 9/11. I just believe in fewer conspirators than you. When you understand why you dismiss the craziest of the theories (e.g. lasers from satellites or UFOs), you will understand why I dismiss your controlled demolition theory.”

It still doesn’t quite work, however. Unlike there being ZERO physical evidence for the existence of a god, there is evidence that controlled demolition theorists can point to, no matter how weak, flawed, or circumstantial.

By: twosticks

twosticks — Sun, 03 May 2009 02:18:54 +0000

Wait, prayers get answered? I prayed for twenty five years and didn’t get shit.

By: Dark_Neo

Dark_Neo — Sun, 03 May 2009 02:13:08 +0000

The 9/11 analogy really doesn’t work, it would mean that I dismiss all theories on 9/11 which would mean I believe 9/11 never happened, which we have evidence for, for example, the WTC buildings aren’t there any more. Since it definitely happened you’re left with believing the option that’s most logical to you (based on real evidence).

Let’s then apply that to God, there’s no definite evidence that he/she/it exists (I know a lot of people cite ‘personal religious experience’, but I mean tangible evidence) therefore all theories about which of our religious deities is the correct God have the same merit, so if you dismiss all but one of these theories, then why not that last one?