So I accept that it's possible to consider beliefs ridiculous but not to wish to ridicule those that hold them. The reason I still think you're better with wrong is that for beliefs to be ridiculous they have to be so obviously wrong so as make holding them worthy of ridicule irrespective of whether you then ridicule them. Not only may this make people who hold them beliefs reluctant to engage with you but it further establishes your own bias.

I also don't think there's much merit in engaging in discussion with those whose views I find ridiculous. The reason for this is pretty simple, if someone holds views which I believe are so obviously wrong as to be worthy of derision then they are unlikely to have arrived by a method that leaves them open to changing their minds or accepting any evidence to the contrary.

This is why I'm good saying that people who believe the world is flat are ridiculous, I'm assuming that they've arrived at those beliefs irrespective of the weight of evidence to the contrary. The problem you have is trying to establish the same weight of evidence against theism that I have against flat earthers I don't believe you have that so I don't believe you're justified calling theism ridiculous. It establishes a standard I don't think you've met.


I agree with the first bit though I'll contend that finding a position ridiculous and wanting to engage with it is kinda ridiculous.

I do believe creationism is and my views on god I'm working out but even when I considered myself a christian I didn't believe in the story of creation as told in the bible and wasn't aware of any friends who did.

I think you're right and we should always concern ourselves with what we can infer from experience and how we interpret them but that doesn't mean not giving them any credit. Similarly to yourself I'm an English man in my 40's, I've worked in a few places and met quite a few people my experience of their stated beliefs is relevant to me.

So I think you're right here to a point. When I'm talking of most people though I'm talking of most people I'd come into contact with as someone who's spent 30 years of my life in the UK and about 13 elsewhere.

So my belief in god can't be reduced to that statement but lets assume for a minute that's a reasonable representation of theism. I'm going to continue to contend that you're better off avoiding the term ridiculous not just in your posts but in your thoughts.

We're all subject to certain bias, you know this we've discussed confirmation bias before, there are a number of ways we prepare ourselves when we look at someone else's arguments, we do this subconsciously we prepare a defence prior to taking on their points and we preempt the arguments that are being made. We take specifically those arguments we know we can defeat and we achieve nothing. There's value in trying to objectively exclude those bias, we make better arguments we learn more and one of the ways we can do this is by taking the best of the oppositions arguments and trying to learn them. Now if you're taking the best of theisms arguments and finding them ridiculous do you think it's likely your predisposed to finding them such? Do you really think that you're considering the very best of the arguments for god and finding them so weak that they are ridiculous? You may well be right and every argument for god be wrong but I don't think you know why they are wrong sufficiently well to call them ridiculous.

And I know this is a derail and could be consider nittery but the kind of discussions this thread is based on would certainly be better served by guarding against hyperbolic language

good points dereds.

In the spirit of "considering the best arguments", I watched this debate this past weekend and found it instructive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Dp3A4FwAaQ

^^You watched (i.e. were present at) that?

Oh no. I should have said, "I watched it on Youtube".

Take YEC in the US - I forget the current %, but it's probably not a bad guess to say ~half of Americans (at least) believe in some combination of YEC and evolution denial. While Dawkins took some flak for his hardline position at the Reason Rally, he encouraged people to mock those beliefs (not the people, but the beliefs), saying "ridicule them!". Wouldn't that evolution denial 'ridiculous'?
At the very least, shouldn't we try to understand why such a large number of people hold beliefs that are harmful to continuing and advancing knowledge, so that we can have an impact on future generations away from being what is effectively anti-science? Don't forget (as if you could) that those beliefs come directly from their interpretation of theology.

I personally could not have married someone who was 'actively' religious (as pointed out in another thread, Doggg?, there are probably more nominal Christians in the world than 'real' practicing Christians), but I wouldn't have a problem with a deist. My wife was delighted to learn the description 'apatheist' (does not believe, is not interested in further discussion).

. what's to understand? Indeed, in dealing with things like 9/11 truth, creationism, flat earth, expanding earth and etc etc etc doesn't it really all boil down to ignoring evidence? If this is the case, then as Dreeds said, what good will it do to find out why? I will actually go a step further here and posit that one does more harm than good when attempting to engage the ridiculous. Why? Take 9/11 truth for example. You answer question after question, debunking stuff like pentagon missle, no plane crash in shanksville etc etc... but unless you have a very strong physics background, and are familiar with the ins and outs of what happened that day, eventually they'll get to a question you can't answer. When this happens, the nonsense believer can use it as an excuse to validate himself and slink into 'victory.'

We are in the age of the internet. The curious mind can find information about almost anything. I think, instead of going after particular varieties of nonsense, it is more useful to teach children how to go about investigating claims and validating things, credibility and the like.

Sommerset's made a couple of the points that I would have but there's a couple I'd like to add.

Dawkins has admitted that his approach is less successful in converting theists than other anti-theists. I think it was during the Moving Naturalism Forward conference that zumby linked to earlier this year. Him advocating the ridiculing of those beliefs is more about cheerleading his side than actually looking for converts.

I've seen those numbers referred to before and I have concerns. It seems to me to be little distinction in beliefs by how committed a person is to them, the people who are really committed aren't engaging with debate and the people who aren't are less likely to be won over by ridicule than they are by reasoned discussion.

Actually I think that for a long time, a flat earth was more credible than there being gods. Now we know the earth isn't flat. We still don't know whether or not there are gods so I could argue that our clinging to those beliefs in an age of scientific enlightenment is even more ridiculous than having them 2000 years ago.

On the other hand, in a world where literally billions of people believe in one kind of deity or other, perhaps it's not ridiculous to also believe. Perhaps it's ridiculous not to believe!

I can see why you say that but that makes me wonder if you've ever debated/discussed the biblical version of creation with anyone? Even if it was limited to 'I don't believe it, I think god created everything in a different way than the bible says'. If you've ever said that to a Biblical creationist, then you were (possibly) giving their position enough respect that you felt it worth pointing out that yours differed and that it's not blindingly obvious to anyone that the bible isn't' correct, because the seven day story would be ridiculous.

So really the only difference is the level of debate you've engaged in. Bear in mind that no matter how ridiculous I find belief in gods, the larger percentage of our species engage in this behaviour, this isn't something that can simply be ignored the way you can ignore the cat lady down the road who thinks that fairies live in her attic.

I've haven't at this point heard a theistic argument that wasn't simply a philosophical word game. They might be difficult, or impossible to refute with logic but that doesn't actually make them true. The Ontological argument is good example.

Whilst the myriad of religions that have and do exist in our societies, and that have fundamentally contradictory or inconsistent beliefs, doesn't in any way prove that there are no gods, for me it does add weight to the possibility that religion is simply a behaviour with survival benefits and there don't have to actually be any gods to explain why it occurs and why there are so many differences.

So, for 21st humans to still be in thrall to what IMO are hunter gatherer superstitions is more than wrong, especially given the negative impact that I believe religion has so I still haven't come up with a better word than ridiculous but whatever it is, it needs to be stronger than just 'wrong'.

I don't know how to contend your claim that a flat earth was more credible than there being gods and I suspect any answer to this is going to include some hindsight bias. I think we need to be really careful when putting ideas into the heads of those from history.

I don't think it's ridiculous to believe however ridiculous I consider certain beliefs. It can't be ridiculous not to believe either I don't think that serves the theists purpose in any case.

Again I think you're being too general. I think you're entitled to consider YEC ridiculous because you have familiarised yourself with evidence that proves the earth is greater than 6000 years old. I don't know you can do that with every argument for god.

So there are a variety of logical arguments for god and I don't find them compelling, I'm happy to accept that they are wrong but again I'll contend that ridiculous is a higher standard and one you, nor I, have met.

Why does something need to be more than wrong? Do you not think you may be introducing a biased subjective element for wanting this?

And by "watching" you mean "listen"?

It's a good debate. Essentially, the one really biting rhetorical argument of Ehrman is "If god wanted us to have his word, why didn't he preserve it". That's structurally the same as "If god doesn't want infants to die, why do infants die." White doesn't really hammer this point, perhaps because he feels he's not well enough versed to get into a free will debate, but he does make clear that apart from that, most of what Ehrman argues is a well presented rhetorical version of textual scepticism.

I don't know if 'I think' and 'claim' are the same but the obvious line is that the earth looked flat, so people thought it was flat. That seems reasonable to me (and I am familiar with the Hindsight bias) where 'we don't know how anything works so we'll attribute what we don't understand to invisible powerful beings' doesn't.

Of that I'm quite certain, I can only debate within the limits imposed by my capabilities (or lack of) though, and I'm trying to improve those. The alternative is to not debate at all, I'm not sure I can stop myself so I try to do it whilst keeping in mind that I don't know what I don't know. I've raised my game, I'm now consciously incompetent :P.

It's not that it 'needs' to be more than wrong, it simply is more than wrong. If I'm wrong about it raining tomorrow, is that the same level of wrong same as trusting my weight to the rotten rope swing over the 1000 foot deep gorge? The consequences are very different and I think that's a similar situation to religion because of the huge impact that it has and it's not something that I can just dismiss and ignore. Religion has a daily impact on my life (not least because society is attempting to urge it on my children), believe me, I'd prefer to just ignore it but I can't.

Right. This is clearly what religious people through the bank are doing these days.

And if you were referring to ancient people, then you're suggesting it's more rational for someone to withhold speculation at all about a new phenomenon/surprising fact rather than attempt some explanation at all and be willing to change it as new evidence becomes available.

You think that they're doing something else? (I'm not sure what 'through the bank' means?)

It depends on what form 'some explanation' takes. You'd agree that there are levels of 'likelihood'?

Also, I'm not sure if religions subscribe to "be willing to change it as new evidence becomes available", historically they have been extremely reluctant to do that, preferring to suppress contradictory information and enact punitive measures for those who were too outspoken. Evidence that appeared to support their explanations, well that was ok.

You should know me well enough by now to recognize when I give you a hint to find a way to steer away from whatever wall you're galloping towards.

For one, I'm a religious person. Do I strike you as the kind of person that "doesn't know how anything works so I'll attribute what I don't understand to an invisible powerful being?" Please ...

But more generally, you're using an absurd carricature of what religious people "do". If you actually had a legit grasp on present day theology, you'd know that god is not used as a blanket entity to attribute anything we don't understand yet on.

(The expression I was looking for was "across the board" [I think])

Sure. Eagerly awaiting your well-reasoned exposition on how -- from the perspective of an antique citizen of, say, Athens -- it is less likely to be poseidons wrath that causes sea storms than just some ... thing.

Since you say "religions" and "historically", I'm sure I can just name a few of the many religions and you'll be willing to either submit evidence or argue why those religions are not within the scope of your usage of religions? So there:

- Greek pantheon
- ancient egypt worship of deities
- Judaism

I'm genuinely curious, because I'll stand to learn a lot about restrictive measures in greek as well as ancient egypt religious practice. I submit, you'll be rather hard pressed to make a convincing case in Judaism.

Sure, but I have a fascination with how bad it's going to be. Just gotta press the button....

No, why do you believe? What is it that you get from from religion?

Also, I think religion originated from "doesn't know how anything works so I'll attribute what I don't understand to an invisible powerful being?" and has become more. I'm starting to see how my introducing that now came across in the past as a dishonest tactic but again it's just me not being specific enough. I can't tell when I should explain things that are obvious about to me about how I think and when I shouldn't.

I believe (As you're aware) that religion to a large extent has become about power, also it's huge comfort blanket, so there are at least two more reasons why people can be religious.

Accepted, let's move on.


I'm not going to provide something that I know you already understand better than I could articulate it. Some explanations are more likely than others, otherwise you'd have to agree that it's as likely that creation can be squarely laid at the foot of a teapot, floating in outer space somewhere, as your god.

You DO think it's rational?

See I don't know how useful more than wrong is in this context, does it get wronger as we know more, is there no objective standard of wrong? I don't know how useful it is and if you are going to insist on using language like that you may have to get used to being accused of hyperbole.

1 final thought on this. The arguments theists have used includes both god as the answer to the infinite regress and the just world hypothesis and the problem of evil. Both of which have been addressed in posts by you. At times in both threads I think it's fair to say that your point got lost and some discussion was necessary to clarify some points. Now to require that kind of clarification suggests that your understanding of both, or at least your ability to explain them was confused. This is kinda understandable fwiw and I spend a good bit of time here confused. However given that your explanations of both suffered from a lack of clarity I don't know you want to contend that either argument is ridiculous. Wrong really does suffice.

I'm going to go for "at least your ability to explain them was confused"

Ok, one last try. Would you think it ridiculous of me to believe that it was going to rain somewhere today? I'm guessing not. Would you think it ridiculous of me to believe that the universe was brought into existence by a giant pink unicorn? I'd have to say yes here.

You have to understand that the existence of your god is as unlikely to me as existence of the giant pink unicorn in which it would be ridiculous to believe. Why does it matter at all? Because of the huge consequences of your belief and that of others like you.

Difficult to answer. I don't "get" anything. I don't sleep sounder, I don't worry less (or more). I believe I was a moral being in the first 25 years of an atheist and I don't think that has changed much since. Certainly I haven't become any less intelligent or argumentative. I can only give the answer I gave before which you'll find entirely unsatisfactory: I find a world with god much more aesthetically pleasing. Theology, to me, is a very elegant version of a glass bead game, a game that I'm happy to be a part of and which I, if I could choose, would probably play my entire life. Given that this would require some real-life commitments that I'm unwilling to accept (no children before marriage, having to accept and publicly defend all of the catholic dogmas etc.), that's unlikely to happen, though.

For an ancient person - of course. You need to understand that the idea that sometimes **** just happens was itself a groundbreaking new insight at one point. It's not like people always were naturalists, yet, given the primitive state of science, grew uncomfortable with the lack of explanation it provided and decided that it's time to invent some gods, to make sleeping a bit more cuddly. So just taking random chance over gods actions was not at all a reasonable choice, in particular since natural phenomena were taken as clear evidence of gods existence.

This seems reasonable but then can we agree that if your ability to explain them was confused that may be a product of your understanding of them?

I'm going to say yes it is ridiculous just as I'd say yes it's ridiculous to posit god as a rubber chicken.

I do understand this I also understand that the huge consequences of my belief and others like me is something you've said before and it has been something we've fallen out over. I don't want to make this personal but when pressed on this before you've not actually pointed out what my beliefs do to damage you.

we're probably best swerving this part of the topic.

See, I really dont get this. Its like saying, I find a world where I am tall ,good looking and charming much more aesthetically pleasing. Or, I find a world with Superman much more aesthetically pleasing.

It just sounds like you are saying "I like the idea of god", which is fine I guess..but it tells you nothing about anything.

This can never be ruled out.

Where an all powerful, all knowing, benevolent creator that refuses to make it's presence clearly known is reasonable? Or just desirable.

Deistic views I can find reasonable, but once we get into the theist territory of assigning attributes to the creator and claiming to know it's intent and how it wishes us to behave, what it considers good and bad, issues of belief like heaven and hell or virgin filled paradises, faith healing, speaking in languages, hearts being cut out or animals sacrificed etc etc, now we're getting to the part that I find ridiculous.

Sure, I don't want this to get personal and my remark wasn't intended as an attack. It's hard though to talk about consequences without it becoming something that includes you because you are a believer and through your action and/or inaction, you support a system that I believe has a net negative effect on our societies. I was just being honest when I included you and I had to mention it because it's the reason why it matters to me and I can't just shrug and accept that people have different views about life.

It's not a discussion we need to have ITT though.

I'm going to come back to this, I'm not offended but you should grant me the opportunity to explain to you why you are wrong.

Well clearly you do, and you go on to describe what is is below:

Looks like a good book. So you find a world with god more aesthetically pleasing, why did you choose to believe in the catholic version of god?


I think **** just happens was probably our default state for the longest part of our early development and that it wasn't until we developed our social brain that we started 'finding' god. I find myself leaning toward Dawkin's argument (and yes I have read and do plan to read other books on this subject) that religion is behavioural byproduct of some other survival enhancing aspect of our physiology.

No, that's not a good analogy. A better one would be, "I find a world in which I can assume the Emperor is really wearing invisible clothes, rather than having to think that he's indeed just waving is dingdong around, much more aesthetic."

Well, there is a little more to it. For one, of course I think that at some point, religious faith has an element of choice to it. One of the reasons, btw, why in antiquity the baptism of infants was not the norm but the exception.

I believe (a belief backed up both by exam grades and my "score" in religious debates with atheists and such ) that I have a fairly clear grasp on how my own denomination argues, to what extend their arguments succeed in constructing an internally coherent whole, and how that whole is connected to the "outside world". In an image: I can weight to what extend my faith succeeds in knitting a resilient web of mutually supporting assertions and I understand where and how and with what resiliency that web is "knit into" the greater web of "the world".

Of course, there are parts of this web that I have more or less interest in. For example, I don't care much about the Problem of Evil or the Free Will debate, or proofs of Existence or whatnot. Here, I defer to authority and assume that if there was a slam-dunk argument, I would've heard about it by now. I am confident of that based on how I judge the intelligence and honesty of my professors against mine, and mine against those I argue against.

So that is the part about choice: I know how resilient the web is and where it's weak points are. Given that knowledge, I chose to side with the invisible clothes.

Aside from that, I do feel that there are some parts of human existence where religion has the more substantive answer. One of them is the question of death, where I think that the advantage of the religious conception is not so much that it promises an afterlife, but rather that it enables the dying and their close ones to experience death in a more meaningful way. Death as part of life, rather than end to it. I've raised this question a few times before in the death-threads that pop up regularly around here; perhaps it's the clientele of a poker forum, but the generic atheist approach to death that's coming in one of two forms ("the fact of no after life let's me live this one life to the fullest", "yeah, at least we're not deluding ourselves with the promise of some fairytale afterlife") seem to me to be terribly unsatisfactory given the profound significance that death has to life.

Furthermore (here we get back to "gosh, how boring"), I find it simply unappealing to conceive of transcendental feelings as nothing more than just some group-dynamics-run-wild or as someone-got-overemotional or whatnot. Again - just a choice of living in a world in which I can listen to a Bruckner Symphony and hear more in the music than just one socially awkward 60+ guy channeling his suppressed sexuality (or whatnot) into a scoresheet.

Finally, as a bit of anecdotal evidence: Apart from my friends and colleagues from university, basically my entire circle of friends is more or less atheist. From my immediate family, my father and brother are, my mother has some undefined belief in "something out there". What I often observe, in particular with individuals of a more "determined atheism", is that they tend to lack adequate vocabulary to broach the "big questions." It's not that they don't think about "what it all means", but even to themselves, the words they find to address it seem somewhat trivial and inadequate. Surprisingly, they often talk about these things with me - as if I can "lend" them a vocabulary more suited for certain topics. And insofar as language shapes reality, I don't want to live in a world where *that* aspect of reality is no longer pre-charted by a vocabulary of a religous type.