PSA for Incoming Religious Folks

[drunkenshoe]

Something about bald assertions?  Anyone can make any bald assertion (an assertion with not a shred of evidence to back it up), but a bald assertion doesn't prove the truth of what it asserts, only the lack of knowledge of the person making it.

Good?

Hey Colanth, welcome back.

[wolf39us]

I kind of want to do something for new members, if @wolf39us and the other mods think it's a good idea, where it's required to go to the rules page before they can post or make an account or something. This would be a good addition to something like that too, I think. Or at least something close to it.

I don't really find this to work all that well.  I've tried rule redirects in the past and it always seems to somehow become an issue.  Not to mention, people won't read it anyway and will just skip the page.  It becomes more of an inconvenience for people and really doesn't change anyone's intent or hinder any kind of behavior.

Also, Colanth -- WELCOME BACK!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I rather agree with the Roman assertion, that there are countless gods ... at least demigods.  The monotheists are so ... mono.

They used to have a "household" god to watch over their home. I hear the folks in Pompeii have demanded a refund.

[PickelledEggs]

I don't really find this to work all that well.  I've tried rule redirects in the past and it always seems to somehow become an issue.  Not to mention, people won't read it anyway and will just skip the page.  It becomes more of an inconvenience for people and really doesn't change anyone's intent or hinder any kind of behavior.

Also, Colanth -- WELCOME BACK!

Ah. Ok

[Mr.Obvious]

I don't really find this to work all that well.  I've tried rule redirects in the past and it always seems to somehow become an issue.  Not to mention, people won't read it anyway and will just skip the page.  It becomes more of an inconvenience for people and really doesn't change anyone's intent or hinder any kind of behavior.

Yeah, but just think what you could get them to agree to that way!

[Baruch]

They used to have a "household" god to watch over their home. I hear the folks in Pompeii have demanded a refund.

The Lares et Penates were ... plural.  They needed to pray to Vulcan in particular, but they didn't know Vesuvius was like Mt Etna.  They did know that the area just west of Naples was an entrance to Hades however.  That is why it was a good chthonic location for the Cumean Sybil.  They did experience earthquakes there, and those are covered by Neptune.  So definitely not enough Neptune worship.  Continue worshipping Seri or Cortana ;-)

Why do you assume that the gods are favorable to humans?  That is a very Christian thing to believe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESWRBvsROoU

Pliny the Younger, by his observations, was the first vulcanologist.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

When did I say I assumed the gods were favorable to humans?

[Mermaid]

I care a great deal about evolution, actually. It's kind of the foundation of everything I believe in.

[Baruch]

When did I say I assumed the gods were favorable to humans?

You implied that the Roman gods, if real, would have saved the people of Pompeii, rather than laughing over their deaths.  Not that their prayers were useless.  Or did I take you wrong?

[Sal1981]

Burden of Proof is a big one & sorta ties in with the first heading in OP, but I think it deserves its own heading.

Unless stated, atheists, apatheists, ignostics, et.al. (non-religious) don't make the claim that god doesn't exist, it's simply a statement of lacking belief in god(s). It's the theists job to present evidence for their particular belief in god(s). There's not enough time in the life of an average human to disprove whatever blanket assertion of invisible, non-detectable and the unfalsifiable you can think of. Although someone might entertain your delirious demands of trying to disprove your faith, don't expect anyone to do so on Atheistforums.com. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, only because of parsimony, because you can't prove a negative assertion exhaustively.

---

Too convoluted? Basically I think Burden of Proof is a big contender and we get way too many "Well, explain that!" on a negative evidence/proof statement.

[Baruch]

Burden of proof is even in trouble with induction ... just because there is evidence 10 times in a row, the evidence may be refuted on the 11th time.  Just like flipping coins.  Deduction is dependent on the truth of the axioms, and the cogency of the proof.  Abduction is the term for probable vs improbable.  So it is an abduction that it is improbable that any prayer will work to heal a person, other than psychosomatically.

[Simon Moon]

My addition to the PSA list would be:

Please don't post one of the philosophical arguments (cosmological argument, teleological argument, ontological argument, TAG, etc) for a god as if we haven't heard them before, and have refuted them with better logic.

They all contain multiple fallacies and are invalid, and/or are unsound.

Also take into account, that almost no theist has ever been convinced to become a theist by one of them. They are almost exclusively used to bolster an already existing, irrational belief, with the veneer of rationality.

I care a great deal about evolution, actually. It's kind of the foundation of everything I believe in.

So, if evolution were disproved, would you then become a theist?

[Baruch]

Philosophical arguments could only be un-sound, if you never heard of them ;-)

[Blackleaf]

So, if evolution were disproved, would you then become a theist?

Let's face it, evolution is not ever going to be proven wrong. It's pretty much a scientific fact that it did happen and will continue to happen in the future, just as the earth has always and will always rotate around the sun. Even if evolution were the only thing keeping us from become theists, it would be an impossible task to discredit it anyway.

[Baruch]

But in scifi, which for most people is a stand-in for science, you can do anything!