venomai

"X is (not) real" is a position, not a rebuttal. Although The Easter Bunny comparison may be loaded with unnecessary ridicule, I certainly wouldn't call it a straw man. Here is a better example of the straw man fallacy, using relevant material: Person A takes position X, paraphrased to: "Prayer and other payments to god would be a waste if it was all for nothing [i.e. if god does not exist as assumed]." Person B presents position Y (a distorted view of position X), paraphrased to: "Your life is a waste if you have prayed." Person B then attacks position Y, saying that "Just because you have prayed before does not mean you wasted your one and only life..." EDIT: I misread part of your post and got rid of my other argument.

Differences serve as the groundwork for any analogy. What is an Analogy? "The two items used in the analogy do not have to be alike in any respect other than the element that is the topic of the discussion." Obviously, both beliefs are vastly different. The claim being made is that both entities are alike only in that they are not real. i.e. It is equal to making the claim that "God is not real." Not at all. It would be futile to try and encompass all conceptions of god when we debate "his" existence. Likewise, when you argue for the existence of god, you are not arguing for the existence of all conceptions of god, but rather for the existence of a specific conception of god. And it is examples like these (involvement of prayer, worship, sacrifice, etc) that make up the vast majority of all theistic beliefs.

As I've said, "Theists have much different, and often much more justified, reasons for believing in god than the Easter Bunny believers do for believing in the Easter Bunny." You've merely reiterated my argument and attempted to pass it off as a rebuttal. As I've said, "Some form of payment is expected in almost every theistic belief -- worship, money, sacrifice, etc." I am not discussing all theistic beliefs, but rather those that do involve worship and sacrifice (which, over the course of history, appear to be in the majority). As I've said, "The conception of god brought about by organized religion is really the only conception of god I care to argue against." I'm tired of debating with you, Zierro. Your rebuttals fail to address my points and only serve to attack claims that I have not been making, or reiterate claims that I have already made.

You've answered your own question. And the amount of debate surrounding a topic is irrelevant. For example, claiming that "Intelligent design is as real as the Easter Bunny" is not invalidated simply because there is more debate about ID than the Easter Bunny. In other words, this claim equates to "Intelligent Design is not real." A possibility no different from the Judeo-Christian God being real. That is to say, neither is very possible at all. If the only alternative to Heaven/Hell is unconsciousness, you are right, ignorance is bliss. But this does not justify the actions, nor does it make them profitable and useful. To use an extreme example, Islamic radicals believe that they will reach Paradise by killing infidels. For all they know, these actions were profitable. The rest of society, however, sees it very differently. Profit and wastefulness are not terms defined solely by your own perceptions, but also the perceptions of society. Being a couch potato is considered "wasteful" not because you think it is, but because others think it is. ... That's the idea. :lol: This is a debate. If atheists were treated no differently from those of faith (i.e. God does not respond to worship and prayer), then the atheist's life on Earth, albeit misguided, would not have been wasteful, compared to the theist who spent his time worshipping and sacrificing to no avail.

In the same way that somebody would make the claim that, for example, incubi and succumbi certainly do not exist. (Mind you, I am not talking about 100% certainty.) Obviously it wasn't clear enough for you... Nobody is trying to equate the arguments of a theist to the arguments of an Easter Bunny believer. Theists have much different, and often much more justified, reasons for believing in god than the (hypothetical) Easter Bunny believers do for believing in the Easter Bunny. Saying that X is as real as Y does not mean that believers in X are no different from believers in Y. A loss of consciousness will not negate your life's wastefulness, although it will restrict you from knowing about it. Of course, it is just as possible that (a) you believed in the wrong God, and as a result you were sent to Hell, or (B) the afterlife is shared by theists and atheists alike (which seems far more reasonable than separation).

If somebody claims that god is as real as the Easter Bunny, I think it's quite clear that they consider both entities to be undoubtedly non-existent. I suppose you mean psychological comfort? Obviously, this would be destroyed if you were to find out that your god does not exist, and that all your "payments" were for nothing. I was a theist before I began debating. (I also believed that LSD was synonymous with PCP, guns were the cause of crime, life in jail was a good punishment, all prostitutes were sex slaves, etc.) It's amazing how much can be gained by simply discussing and questioning your once-held beliefs. Unless, of course, you believed in the wrong god! I think I'll play it safe and stick with atheism. :lol:

In saying that God is "as real as" some undoubtedly non-existent entity, it only serves to point out that neither entity actually exists. It says nothing about how many people believe in it, or its impact on humanity, etc. Some form of payment is expected in almost every theistic belief -- worship, money, sacrifice, etc. This certainly would be a waste if it was all for nothing. Atheism, on the other hand, does not expect any such payment. With atheism, your extra free time and money can be wasted on more valuable alternatives, such as sleep and television. :thumbup:

I see death as a beautifully peaceful end to our biological life. I look forward to my death, but I obviously wish to avoid it long enough to ensure a full and joyful life. I would be pretty content with "the void" after death; simply ceasing to feel and think. I'd imagine it would feel like a dreamless sleep. I've also entertained the idea of "life after death," mainly because of the more recent research into near-death experiences[1] and reincarnation[2]. By this understanding, the afterlife is not some sort of Heaven/Hell system, but merely a continuation of consciousness. Although these fields are still new, and the evidence certainly is not conclusive, it was enough get me thinking about it. At the moment, I don't really have a preference of one over the other. They both sound pretty good to me. There aren't many benefits to having a fixed belief in "god" as per the traditional definition. It must be understood that when I debate "god's existence," although the term is indeed very broad, I am not attempting to beat down all conceptions of god. I can't possibly cover them all in a single example. :lol: The conception of god brought about by organized religion is really the only conception of god I care to argue against. I see little point in arguing whether there exists an "unknown, unobservable, unintelligent and inanimate entity" that some people label "god."

It depends on your conception of god. The belief that god (rather than natural selection) created the Earth and its inhabitants may not change your entire lifestyle for the worst, but it certainly can create a negative influence on your actions and ideologies (i.e. generally counterproductive, restricting, etc). You argued earlier that a belief in god is justified because there are "good reasons" behind it. Now you're saying that these benefits and "good reasons" are not really that important? :lol: Take young-Earth creationism, for example, which would have left behind clear evidence (i.e. the Earth being young). Although finding such evidence may not "prove god exists," it certainly would help support the claims of many theists. A healthy level of spiritualism can often be a great thing. :thumbup: In some ways I consider myself a spiritual atheist. My disbelief in the notion of a "monarch of the universe" (god) has given me a great deal of freedom in reconsidering aspects of the afterlife, reincarnation, spirit guides, deep meditation, shamanism, etc. [With that said, I do not blindly believe in any of these notions.]

As we've already discussed, our actions are inevitably influenced by our beliefs. The term "god" is indeed very general, and describes no single belief in particular. But when we debate "his" existence, we generally refer to the notion of an "intelligent creator" that is worshipped and can physically interact with our universe. Nonbelief is the default position regarding any unknown entity -- I do not need to show you how "benefitial" it is to not believe in Russell's Teapot. With that said, there are many benefits to nonbelief (depending on your definition of god). Most importantly; blind faith is removed. If the universe we live in was created and/or influenced by a higher, intelligent being, as theists claim, there would be evidence to suggest his existence. How can we provide evidence for dark matter if we cannot observe it, let alone understand it? By observing influences in the physical world.

My apologies, I did mean cop-out. I'm mixing up my words. :lol: As real as the tooth fairy. i.e. Not very. Beauty is a subjective interpretation of a person, place or thing. Along the same vein, I can not show you empirical evidence of "coolness." I can, however, observe the ways in which it influences human behaviour. If you are trying to liken god to these qualities, then I would agree. God is nothing more than a subjective interpretation of the unexplained. By this understanding, god is not only as unintelligent and unloving as a frying pan, but is also unable to interact with the physical world. Er... What?

Again, you are simply changing god's properties in order to evade the problem. What if I was to tell you that these demons are also "different" from other non-corporeal entities, and thus can be applied to the problem just as god? Your continued belief in God seems primarily for psychological comfort. Interesting that you brush off the tooth fairy as a useless belief when it, too, was introduced solely as a means of providing psychological comfort. Aside from this psychological comfort, there is little benefit to believing in god. Evolution has created a fantastically fine-tuned environment that we often perceive as incredibly beautiful. Concepts such as love, music and human thought actually help to strengthen my belief in reality and scientific exploration, and push me away from a belief in ancient myths and romantic ideals. Skepticism is the most reasonable response to such a claim, and it certainly is not a scapegoat. Rather than evading the issue, it demands further details to support it. As many atheists in this thread have come to realize, asking for evidence is indeed useless; theists simply can not provide it.

By no means are McKay and colleagues presenting this as fact or conclusive evidence. It is a finding that they argue to be suggestive of Martian bacteria. I'm really not sure what the problem is. I'm not saying you need to believe in this, nor am I saying this is proven fact.

The lovely scapegoat of theism. If you can't explain a problem, simply change god's properties in order to evade the question. Where are you going with this? As I've pointed out, simply because a concept was first imagined by the subjective human mind (rather than objectively observed) says little about whether or not it exists -- and thus we should not be making conclusions based on whether or not something was originally imagined by humans. You argue that, because the existence of the tooth fairy was originally fabricated with the knowledge that it is fictional, it is completely incomparable to god. So, for the sake of ease, let's use a different example. Demons, such as incubi, were once believed to exist by a large number of people. Often it was claimed that the incubus/succubus would first paralyze you with a spell, and then proceed to rape you. Many people reported the experience as terrifying. Of course, we now know better. Scientific research into these phenomena have helped to explain them by natural means. The sleep paralysis, for example, is a cause of REM atonia, not a demon's spell. Vivid hallucinations of all kinds have shown to be a common feature of hypnagogia and related states. Although there remains no conclusive evidence to support the (non-)existence of these demons and their spells, we understand today that their existence and interaction with humans is definitely not a matter of being "50/50." It's quite clear that, while they certainly may exist, the likelihood of their existence is not equal to the likelihood of their non-existence. The same logic can be applied to gods and the phenomena that have been attributed to them. Thunder, the burning of the sun, the creation of the Earth, the healing of a dire illness, etc.

Refer to my note: "If god was observable, which some claim to be the case, then strong evidence can exist to support its existence, and so your entire argument would be moot." [unless you are referring to the commonly claimed "connection with god," something that I have even experienced at times. I have seen and felt many things that do not reflect objective reality, from my cell phone melting in my hand to the walls moving in front of me. This is not strong evidence to support the occurrence of these things, nor is it any evidence at all.] First you suggest that evidence does not exist, hence the whole "50/50" ordeal, and now you suggest that evidence may exist? I am not suggesting that the possibility of god and unicorns existing is the same -- I am suggesting that the possibility of these things existing is not equal to the possibility of these things not existing. Do you understand the difference between these two statements? Logical fallacies are used to point out flaws in other arguments, not to support or "prove" one's own argument. You've made it quite clear which one of us does not understand the purpose of logical fallacies. This in itself, for example, is the beginnings of a logical fallacy. You have responded not to my argument (that "the possibility of God and all other things may one day be shown to exist"), but a distorted view of it. The "straw man" of sorts that you have created is that I am equating the possibility of God existing to that of pink unicorns. For more information about the straw man fallacy, I suggest you look here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html You have argued that, based on a lack of evidence, the existence of god is no more or less likely than her non-existence. If you are wrong, this does not mean that god exists, nor does it mean that god does not exist, it simply means that your claim is not correct.

First and foremost, as I have stated numerous times in the past, I am not equating god to the tooth fairy when using this analogy. (In the same vein, Russell's Teapot does not intend to equate god to a teapot.) Secondly, if you agree that there is no evidence to support the existence of a god, which you have stated numerous times in this thread, then you must concede that it was indeed a concept first imagined (i.e. "invented") solely by the human mind, rather than, say, by observation. [NB]was[/i] observable, which some claim to be the case, then strong evidence can exist to support its existence, and so your entire argumen would be moot.] Take early theories of atoms, for example. Although we now have evidence to support their existence, it was originally a notion "fabricated" by the human mind in order to try and explain the world around us. Likewise, the concept of god was also fabricated by the human mind in order to try and explain the world around us. This, obviously, leaves open the possibility that, one day, god may be shown to exist. I also leave open the possibility that the tooth fairy, or pink unicorns, or anything else that you can imagine, may indeed be shown to exist. However, this does not mean that we must consider the existence of these entities to be as likely as their non-existence. Lastly, "every body knows the tooth fairy to be fabricated, therefore it must be fabricated" is a logical fallacy (ad populum).

Of course, even though there is no conclusive evidence to support the existence of the invisible and non-corporeal Tooth Fairy, this does not mean that we consider its existence no more or less likely than its non-existence.

A subjective conclusion, you mean, not an objective one. If there is indeed any damage to Muslim "reputation," it is not due to the minority of radicals -- something that exists in every population (blacks, Germans, right-wings, etc). The more likely detriment to their "reputation" is the ignorance of the West, brought about by propaganda and media hype.

How does a minority of radicals "ruin the rest" of an entire population? I guess the entire population of American whites is "ruined" too, huh, just because a minority of them are radical supremacists?

Sorry mate, but if there are prizes involved, I am going to have to vote for the artwork most deserving of them. Art should not be about popularity, and I'm a bit disappointed to see some great works that have fallen behind yours not due to differences in artistic quality, but differences in the artist's fanbase. [i voted for #1, for the record. 50 to 60 hours with a fantastic result.]

I'd like to see your sources. McKay and co-workers applied a very thin coating of gold and palladium. Sometimes this coating can obscure or change surface features. McKay and his co-workers tested for these kinds of artificial features by examining other rock samples besides ALH 84001 that had been treated exactly the same as the ALH 84001 samples with the bacteria shapes. McKay and co-workers did not see the bacteria-shaped features on the other samples, and did not see them on samples of ALH 84001 without carbonate mineral globules. The found that the gold-palladium coating did leave a very fine cracked surface on the samples, but much smaller than the bacteria-shaped objects. So, they conclude that the bacteria shapes in ALH 84001 were not accidental products (artifacts) of sample handling and preparation. Source: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lpi/meteorites/life.html Nobody is claiming to have found martian bacteria. We very well may have found fossils of Martian bacteria, however.

"Good or Bad? (Justified or Not)" Simply because something is unjustified does not make it "bad," and vice versa. In the case of any form of radicalism that includes human sacrifice, those who practise it have a severely skewed sense of morals. Their views, while not necessarily "right" or "wrong," are far out of line with the rest of world, and are thus unacceptable.

What motive would one government have for covering up findings of extra-terrestrial life when this has been such a prime area of research for so long? More importantly, what makes you think all governments would cover this up? Keep in mind that the United States are not the only ones making progress in space research. If life of any "intelligent" capacity had existed on Mars, we likely would have observed it long ago. If we were to find life on Mars, there is a good chance that it would be along the lines of microscopic organisms and bacteria -- certainly not a discovery worth "covering up." Here is an interesting link on possible fossils of early microscopic organisms on Mars: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap960807.html (Note that these are fossils, that is to say, even if these organisms do constitute life, we have no evidence that they still exist on Mars.)

#2 is the best. The cat is cute... but not fit for every scene. :lol:

Looks great. :) What about networking? Have you already implemented it?