If there is no God. Then someone explain life.

[sdelsolray]

Where is this Purgatory?  Do members have access?

[PopeyesPappy]

Doesn't have anything to do with the op, but most of the rest of the thread doesn't either. Might be good for bustin' ol' Perky's chops though.

Courtesy of our old buddy Min.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

He can post in purgatory. He's probably actually too dumb to figure that out.

(faint sounds of laughter fade into the distance)

[doorknob]

who didn't see that coming?

[trdsf]

Replicatable data observation is for  science.

And science is how we understand how everything works.  For the bits we don't understand, we keep doing more science until we do.

I notice you ran like hell from my points about truth and belief.

[Blackleaf]

who didn't see that coming?

[SGOS]

Every time I read the thread title in "Recent Topics", I think, "Oh no!  Not again!"  It's such a common challenge from the mentally lame, that the fallacy keeps jumping out at me like the little puppet clown in a jack-in-a-box.  It's like little kids that keep turning the crank to watch the clown, except that even little kids eventually tire of it.  And the adults endure it, because after all, it's just little kids who are delighted by the activity.

[Hydra009]

Every time I read the thread title in "Recent Topics", I think, "Oh no!  Not again!"  It's such a common challenge from the mentally lame, that the fallacy keeps jumping out at me like the little puppet clown in a jack-in-a-box.  It's like little kids that keep turning the crank to watch the clown, except that even little kids eventually tire of it.  And the adults endure it, because after all, it's just little kids who are delighted by the activity.

I don't even get the logic behind the challenge.  Theists posit a God and some of them say that God explains everything.  Atheists don't.  That doesn't mean that atheists can explain everything, because obviously, we can't.  Theists don't have all the answers either, but some of them have fooled themselves into thinking all the answers are in their holy book.  But that's not better.  Believing that you know things you obviously don't is much worse than being honest about your ignorance.

Besides, it's not like the unknown is immediately a point for Jesus.  "Tide goes in, tide goes out.  Can't explain that."  By golly he's right, I guess it's time to get on my hands and knees and convert.  No, it doesn't work like that.  If anything, pointing out humanity's ignorance on a subject just motivates intelligent people to figure it out, not to give up and resort to a magical explanation.

This whole thing is like arguing with someone about ghosts and them saying "If ghosts aren't real, then what happens to people when they die?  And how do you explain every ghost sighting?"  So, I have to definitively prove that consciousness doesn't exist after death and debunk every reported ghost sighting or ghosts are real?  That's a impossibly high standard to meet to maintain skepticism.  And I've noticed that these impossible standards only apply to whatever supernatural being the author believes in, rather than supernatural beings in general.  One can conclude that the divinity of Julius Caesar is bullshit at the drop of a hat, but to make a similar judgement on the divinity of Jesus, you apparently have to be an omniscient god yourself.  It's ludicrous.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm going to invite all my MoBap cousins to join here.

You can thank me later.

[PopeyesPappy]

I'm going to invite all my MoBap cousins to join here.

You can thank me later.

In that case I'm going to propose a five (5) "good" tooth minimum requirement for membership.

[SGOS]

It's ludicrous.

Logical fallacies are seductive, especially if one is predisposed to an idea.  Why they are so much easier to spot when you aren't so predisposed, is harder to explain, but this assumes that the offender thinks methodically part of the time.  In fact, I believe that many theists never make it a point to be methodical about any thinking.  As for the divinity of Julius Caesar, on the surface, it might appear they are skeptical about it because they thought it through, but really they just reject his divinity and that's the end of it.  Of course many theists do test ideas with logic, but many of them are selective.  Either any logical ability they have disappears when it comes to Jesus, or they treat God related things as a special case.  But many of their claims and questions like the thread title, betray an complete incomprehension of logical fallacies.

Oddly, I think man's intelligence evolved along with some useless baggage.  Logical fallacies probably could never exist without intelligence.  It's an unintended consequence of something useful.

[SGOS]

I'm going to invite all my MoBap cousins to join here.

You can thank me later.

Maybe Wolf can create another sub-forum like purgatory.  We could call it "Day Care."

[PickelledEggs]

Where is this Purgatory?  Do members have access?

If you want access, you can have it. It's where we throw trolls to when we don't feel like giving them a full ban. They become restricted to posting in only that section.

Let one of us mods/admins know if you want Purgatory access and we'll make it happen

[Hydra009]

As for the divinity of Julius Caesar, on the surface, it might appear they are skeptical about it because they thought it through, but really they just reject his divinity and that's the end of it.

Because they weren't raised to believe it and didn't grow up in a society where that's the norm.  I guarantee you that if you got a time machine, babysnatched these people and dropped them off in Rome a decade after the assassination, they'd be sacrificing cows to the gods just like everyone else.

Of course many theists do test ideas with logic, but many of them are selective.  Either any logical ability they have disappears when it comes to Jesus, or they treat God related things as a special case.

Mostly, I think it's a special case.  Most people have little trouble exercising skepticism in their daily life (though given the popularity of denialism and conspiracy theories, this seems to not be the case and I might have to eventually retract that claim), but when you put 'em in religious mode, they all of a sudden can't apply skepticism to their own beliefs.

[SGOS]

Mostly, I think it's a special case.  Most people have little trouble exercising skepticism in their daily life (though given the popularity of denialism and conspiracy theories, this seems to not be the case and I might have to eventually retract that claim), but when you put 'em in religious mode, they all of a sudden can't apply skepticism to their own beliefs.

It is a special case with many, although I don't think it's the norm with most of them who show up here.  Those who do realize they are using the special case fallacy, if only intuitively, often fall back on the "believing through faith" argument to support their belief.  They realize they have nothing to actually impart, but faith seems like something valid or concrete to them.  Sometimes I get the feeling that some of that group have at least a vague understanding of what evidence should be.  They understand that they can't demonstrate anything through faith, but it does justify their belief to themselves.  Others, when they talk about their faith, just sound like they are parroting something they heard someone in church say.