If I'm not mistaken, he's not saying that it's impossible that you are right. He says it is merely possible, though not necessarily so. Proving that something is possible does not prove that it is actually so.


It is rational to choose it as an explanation, it is irrational to choose it as the explanation.

Well said.

I'm not trying to argue that gods cannot exist. I'm not trying to argue that we aren't in a simulation. I don't have access to these truths.

All I'm trying to argue is that we all have to make a personal choice, and we can rate the rationality of that choice.

We must choose from among the following options: (GalacticEmperorXenu) (Allah) (Brahman) (Shiva) (FlyingSpaghettiMonster) (Yaweh) (InASimulation) (It'sAllADream) (i'mABrainInAVat) (IAmGod), ad infinitum

I'm trying to show that the only rational choice to accept as one's belief is the simplest. The one that requires the fewest things to believe in.

The only extraordinary claim my belief system contains is the following: "Either the universe as we know it is eternal, or it spontaneously popped into existence from nothing."

I don't deny that that's extraordinary, and I don't claim to be able to prove it. It doesn't affect the strength of my argument, though, because no one can come up with an explanation that doesn't involve something being eternal or spontaneously popping into existence from nothing. All of the options I mentioned above do. The difference is that mine does not require me to believe in any OTHER extraordinary claims that have no evidence.

If I'm not mistaken, he's not saying that it's impossible that you are right. He says it is merely possible, though not necessarily so. Proving that something is possible does not prove that it is actually so.

It is rational to choose it as an explanation, it is irrational to choose it as the explanation.

The sticking point for me is more-so the intolerance that he displays. I was never arguing for religion as the solution. Much like you say I was just arguing that it has a place at the table and shouldn't be looked down on simply by virtue of being religion. This was repeatedly met with hostility and name calling. I don't get why that's so much more acceptable than believing in a higher power.

I think that religion causes great harm to our society, and holds humanity back as a whole. I have great contempt for what I consider blind ignorance.

I never attacked you personally, I simply attacked the belief system you share with much of the world. You're either secure enough in your belief system to be unfazed by that, or you're not -- and if you're not, you might want to rethink your belief system.

You're coming off as a kid who's throwing a tantrum because no one will let you be right.

Not to mention that you can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that there's a difference between criticism/contempt and intolerance.

I would defend your right to practice your religion. I have already stated that multiple times. Do you keep coming back to that because it's easier than trying to argue for the existence of god?

I think that religion causes great harm to our society, and holds humanity back as a whole. I have great contempt for what I consider blind ignorance.

I never attacked you personally, I simply attacked the belief system you share with much of the world. You're either secure enough in your belief system to be unfazed by that, or you're not -- and if you're not, you might want to rethink your belief system.

[font="Arial"]
You attacked me quite specifically a few times on top of insulting everyone in a group of people to whom I belong. That is about as personal as it gets.

[color="#1C2837"]Not to mention that you can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that there's a difference between criticism/contempt and intolerance.[color="#1C2837"]
I would defend your right to practice your religion. I have already stated that multiple times. Do you keep coming back to that because it's easier than trying to argue for the existence of god?[/quote]
[color="#1C2837"]Yes. I take solace knowing you support my right to practice a religion and think I'm a delusional shit eating monkey for doing so.

[color="#1C2837"]You are displaying quite literally the dictionary definition of intolerance in this whole thread:
[color="#1C2837"]

[color="#333333"]
in·tol·er·ance
[sup][/sup]? [color="#333333"]?[color="#333333"][color="#333333"][[color="#333333"]in-[color="#333333"]tol-er-[color="#333333"]uhns[color="#333333"]] [color="#333333"]Show IPA[color="#333333"][color="#333333"][color="#333333"][color="#333333"][color="#333333"]noun[color="#333333"][color="#7B7B7B"][color="#333333"][color="#333333"]1.[color="#333333"][color="#333333"][color="#333333"]lack [color="#333333"]of [color="#333333"]toleration; [color="#333333"]unwillingness [color="#333333"]or [color="#333333"]refusal [color="#333333"]to [color="#333333"]tolerate [color="#333333"]or[color="#333333"]respect [color="#333333"]contrary [color="#333333"]opinions [color="#333333"]or [color="#333333"]beliefs, [color="#333333"]persons [color="#333333"]of [color="#333333"]different[color="#333333"]races [color="#333333"]or [color="#333333"]backgrounds, [color="#333333"]etc.[/quote][/font]

[quote name='SamLowry' timestamp='1312314806' post='4843739']
If I'm not mistaken, he's not saying that it's impossible that you are right. He says it is merely possible, though not necessarily so. Proving that something is possible does not prove that it is actually so.

It is rational to choose it as an explanation, it is irrational to choose it as the explanation.

The sticking point for me is more-so the intolerance that he displays. I was never arguing for religion as the solution. Much like you say I was just arguing that it has a place at the table and shouldn't be looked down on simply by virtue of being religion. This was repeatedly met with hostility and name calling. I don't get why that's so much more acceptable than believing in a higher power.
[/quote]
It's true that he shouldn't have done that, but I definitely understand his frustrations. IMHO, when it comes to religion, people have a general tendency to become dishonest and/or irrational. For example, I do consider belief in Christianity to be completely irrational (note how that entails not just belief in a god, but also the very specific rules and historical events associated with Christianity), which makes believers go all defensive, for the simple reason that "irrational" has such a negative connotation. If the word "unscientific" had been used, they most probably just would have agreed, while the message is in essence the same.

An example of intellectual dishonesty which irritated me a lot: in a past religion-thread, some smiley-obsessed moderator whose name shall remain unmentioned said very clearly he knew the absolute truth, because "he did a lot of reading". I told him the same as I did in this thread: it's not because you can make everything fit, that it is so. He replied that I was arrogant for thinking I knew the absolute truth... So, saying for a fact that we don't know the truth is apparently delusional, while cherry picking between human-told supernatural stories and presenting your personal selection as absolute truth is perfectly rational. Needless to say, I just started to ignore him.

There are many, many more dishonesties to be found in the reasoning of most believers, but since long posts have a much lesser chance to get read, I'll spare myself the trouble.

[font="Arial"]

[/font]
[font="Arial"]Can you provide a *single* example of an event/entity that does not have a cause that comes before it?

I think this has probably been covered a thousand times in this and previous threads but this line of reasoning is a slippery slope. If you say that for every entity/event that exists, there has to be a cause that comes before it, then you are forced to apply the same rule to god (unless you contend that god is not an entity that exists; in which case we are in total agreement and needn't go further with the discussion). Therefore god must also have a cause that came before him. So the question is what was that cause? And then the cause of that cause?? and the cause of that cause??? and the cause of that cause????[/font]

[font="Arial"]

[font="Arial"]We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.[/font]
[font="Arial"]

[/font]
[font="Arial"] [/font]
[font="Arial"]When it comes to explaining the existence of the universe the invocation of a creator god does nothing but shift the emphasis of what it is that we need to explain. If you are uncomfortable with the idea that the universe can exist without a cause, then why are you comfortable with the idea that god could exist without a cause?[/font]

[font="Arial"]
[/font][font="Arial"][color="#1C2837"]Yes. I take solace knowing you support my right to practice a religion and think I'm a delusional shit eating monkey for doing so.

[color="#1C2837"]You are displaying quite literally the dictionary definition of intolerance in this whole thread:
[color="#1C2837"]

[color="#333333"]
in·tol·er·ance
[sup][/sup]? [color="#333333"]?[color="#333333"][color="#333333"][[color="#333333"]in-[color="#333333"]tol-er-[color="#333333"]uhns[color="#333333"]] [color="#333333"]Show IPA[color="#333333"][color="#333333"][color="#333333"][color="#333333"][color="#333333"]noun[color="#333333"][color="#7B7B7B"][color="#333333"][color="#333333"]1.[color="#333333"][color="#333333"][color="#333333"]lack [color="#333333"]of [color="#333333"]toleration; [color="#333333"]unwillingness [color="#333333"]or [color="#333333"]refusal [color="#333333"]to [color="#333333"]tolerate [color="#333333"]or[color="#333333"]respect [color="#333333"]contrary [color="#333333"]opinions [color="#333333"]or [color="#333333"]beliefs, [color="#333333"]persons [color="#333333"]of [color="#333333"]different[color="#333333"]races [color="#333333"]or [color="#333333"]backgrounds, [color="#333333"]etc.

[/font]
[/quote]

I am?

[font=arial, sans-serif]tol·er·ate[/font]
/?täl??r?t/

<li style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; line-height: 1.2; list-style-type: decimal; list-style-position: initial; list-style-image: initial; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small; ">Allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference[font=arial, sans-serif][size=2]

• - a regime unwilling to tolerate dissent

[/font]<li style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; line-height: 1.2; list-style-type: decimal; list-style-position: initial; list-style-image: initial; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small; ">Accept or endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance[font=arial, sans-serif][size=2]

• - how was it that she could tolerate such noise?
• [/quote]

[color="#767676"]It would seem I have practiced exactly the definition of tolerance. I endure something unpleasant and disliked. I have never said people should be forced to be atheists. I've simply spoken my viewpoint. Your feelings are obviously hurt because you imagined that I called you a shit-eating monkey, and we're all very sad about that I'm sure, but grow up and at least learn to use correct definitions like a big boy.[/font]
[color="#767676"]

[color="#767676"]I may have been critical, judgmental, maybe even contemptuous. But I haven't practiced intolerance.

Yes. I take solace knowing you support my right to practice a religion and think I'm a delusional shit eating monkey for doing so.

You are displaying quite literally the dictionary definition of intolerance in this whole thread:

in·tol·er·ance
? ?[in-tol-er-uhns] Show IPAnoun1.lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate orrespect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of differentraces or backgrounds, etc.

[/quote]

I am?

tol·er·ate [tol-uh-reyt]
verb (used with object)

1. to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit.
2. to endure without repugnance; put up with: I can tolerate laziness, but not incompetence.
[/quote]

If by "tolerate" you refer to the first definition, then obviously you're wrong. I haven't prohibited you from anything, nor could I if I wanted to.

If you mean the second definition, then I suppose you're right. I can endure religion, but not without repugnance. You win, sir. I am intolerant by definition 2!! Now do us all a favor and stop crying about it.

I wonder how tolerant you'd be if the entire country was satanic, or wiccan, or worshipped toilet bowls. Actually, you'd probably fall right in line wouldn't you.