Does your steryotypical believer actually exist?

Schrafinator wrote; I was just wondering - what with my recent succesful and logical argument concerning a Conclusion of consciousness - about why atheists/agnostics hold a belief that they "own" logic, reason and science?Is it because we are stealing your cake and eating it?It seems that many get defensive if we try and justify our beliefs with reasoning etc.. I guess we can't do right for doing wrong, but not for the want of trying. I mean, I thought that you wanted us to test our beliefs, so we don't use post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias etc.. - Fair enough..Or rather - is it that you atheists/agnostics simply hold a position in your head that says (" No matter whats/he says you must say that it is no logical, scientific or reasonable - no matter what ").Basically, I am asking if you infact believe we are the emotional steryotypes you make us out to be, and therefore - no logical argument will ever hold water with you, because deep down you have to obey your inner dudeguy - who preaches "they're emotional chumps"?Why can't science logic or reason justify belief? I say that it can, if it is logical - scientific or reasonable!

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

By all means use science, logic and reason to justify your beliefs. But if you do, you are then playing on our turf and your beliefs will be subject to detailed analysis, and testing.I argue that no religious beliefs stand up to such scrutiny, so it is often wise for the theist to hold those beliefs inmmune to such examination.Christians often find themselves in a dilemma. It order for their beliefs to retain some credibility in this age of reason, they have developed apologetics. When those apologetics fail, they resort to the old canards of "faith", resisting exposing their claims to controlled tests and stating that humans are incapable of understanding God's mysterious ways.So are you up for a challenge, Mike? Most Christians believe in faith healing: do you? If so why not organise a controlled study of faith healing. Contact Randi.org and if you demonstrate the validity of supernatural faith healing in controlled tests you stand to convert millions (me included), and of course earn a $million.

We don't "own" it. But we believe what we believe because of the successful prosecution of reason and science.If you employ reason and science, but arrive at a position where you believe in miracles and the supernatural, then you did something wrong. It's as inescapable a conclusion as if you used mathematics and proved that 2+2=5. If you got that result, you did something wrong. It's not that we get "defensive." It's that we get pissed to see people misuse science and logic, which is what you have to do to "prove" Christianity or any other supernatural position with science. No, I pretty much believe that believers like you have the same mindset as victims of domestic violence. In fact, the arguments are usually almost always the same in that they exonerate the abuser (God) and blame the victim (people to whom bad things happen) for the misfortunes that are visited upon them. Abuse victims will often go to great lengths to exonerate and even defend, voiciferously, their abuser.Yeah, I'm sure that's going to piss you off. Well, victims of abuse get pissed off too, when you tell them their boyfriend/girlfriend is abusing them. Because you believe in something that, by definition, can't be substantiated by science. Hey, it's not our fault. You believers are the ones that defined God in such a way as to be outside the purview of science, and that's a pretty reasonable action on your part, because otherwise, we would prove your God doesn't exist.

If it is your turf - does that mean atheists/agnostic invented all categories and rules concerning the three?If so - does that imply a possible bias therein?Because at some logic aites concerning "fallacies" - I notice a LOT of bad examples include Christians or God. The "scotsman fallacy" for example.Does this mean you infact invent rules to remove God?

No, actually, the bulk of it was developed by Enlightenment Christians trying to understand God's clockwork universe. Eh, that's one that cuts both ways. For instance, as much as I'd like to have a rational basis to say that Joseph Stalin or Jeffery Dahmer weren't "true" atheists, I'd be committing the "True Scotsman" fallacy to say that "no true atheist would commit those crimes."Those two guys didn't believe in God. So, they were atheists, as true atheists as I am. Since the "rules" were largely drafted by believers during the Enlightenment, I'd say that's bogus.

Does this mean the likes of Newton were wrong? This implies that if we simply are logical or scientific - then we have "misused" it in your book, by simply using it. Is that fair? The difference might be a logical one that you don't heed.In that - the abused of domestic violence - are abused by one, and also - might be treated well at times, by the one.Whereas - we believe there is God (good) - and satan (evil). We believe this because Christ cast out diseases etc - and said they were of satan... Have you ever known me to get p'd off?

No, because that's not what they did. In none of Newton's works, or any other scientist, will you find the scientific process employed to defend the existence of God.It's fine for Newton et al to believe in God. But they didn't use logic or science to come to that conclusion. As fair as discarding any purported "proof" that 2+2=5. You can't employ science to arrive at conclusions that are, by their very nature, unscientific.So, if you arrive at an unscientific conclusion, we know you must have done something wrong. It's inescapable, and so far, universally true. Meh, abuse by proxy. It's still abuse, even if God hires Satan to do it in his place. And the arguments used are still the same. Well, if you can take it in stride, that's a good sign.

MTW If belief requires an existence in the mind before the investigation of its'validity then I would question how you detach your bias from the investigation? It is my observation that people who believe state that the only way to knowledge about the things they are trying to establish is if you first believe then you will see the validity of the belief and not before.Are you stating here that the belief can stand alone on its own logically?

Neither do I really. However - we are all human, and so we have some level of intellect that requires satisfaction. I know my belief isn't based on science or reasoning etc.. But there is also a part of me that "thinks" about it. Well, I dunno - this might be that inner-dudeguy I spoke about. You are using the 2+2=5, in that - if I use logic for example - and conclude God, then I am wrong and coming to "5". This means that if I use logic correctly - and say 2+2=4 - you are infact saying that God is 5. What if he is 4? But Crash - I thought believers all disagreed with each other, and so they can't be right?I think that God infact rejects satan and his evil.

I suggest you read the thread " Can logic support theistic position " - my argument and it's premises are based on a neutral position - and common knowledge - which is an observed truth to all peoples. No. I am saying one can satisfy the intellectual part of believing - in that, the small part which might prove God to us personally, can be arrived at through common knowledge and observation of agreed truths by all peoples. But you'd have to be incredibly objective/open-minded - and first rid all biases before looking at my argument - because only then will u understand it.

MTWIs that the one where you introduce these premises? I would ask if you can think of anything that would contradict either of these premises? Also as concerns #2 that there are recognized systems in place are you refering to man made systems or natural ones?

Mike wrote:

---

But you'd have to be incredibly objective/open-minded - and first rid all biases before looking at my argument - because only then will u understand it.

---

Incredibly objective and open-minded, or a stereo typical emotional Christian?Are you able to rid yourself of bias in order to look at your own arguments objectively and open-minded?Without going over old ground of that other thread (which I haven't read), can you provide me with one Christian claim that stands up to reason, logic, or science when analysed objectively (and which doesn't rely on an appeal to emotion or faith)?Here are some that don't:
Faith healing
Power of prayer
Life after death
The resurrection of Jesus
Noah's Ark
A 6000 year old earthI agree with Crashfrogs domestic violence interpretation, although I'd replace the the abuser "God", with the more tangible "Church elders and leaders". It is these guys that use fictional entities to establish and maintain the abusive relationship.

Well, no one's saying you can't think about your faith, or ponder theological questions, or couch your beliefs in a personal narrative that makes sense to you. Go ahead and do all that to your heart's content.But science and logic have certain rules for the prosecution of their methods, and those rules mean that you can never reach conclusions that are unscientific if you follow them. That's a blessing and a curse, because on one hand it means that the conclusions of science are always verifiable; on the other hand, it means that science can never substantiate or refute the supernatural. As much as I'd love to disprove the existence of God with science, I can't. Just as you can't prove the opposite with science.What could be more fair than that? He's not, though. The definition of God is such that he can never be substantiated by scientific reasoning. Hey, don't complain to me. I'm not the one who defined the word "God." In other words, you're the one that defined God as "5", not me. If you want to propose a God that can be substantiated by science, then you need to realize that opens the possibility of disproving the existence of that God. Maybe that's a risk you're comfortable with.So, if some purported scientific reasoning actually does substantiate God, then we know the reasoning is wrong. I don't understand what you mean here at all.

So far as I am aware the main group - at least the one I most frequently encounter - that claims to "own" logic are believers - the Presuppositionalists.If I criticise a believers arguments for being illogical it is because they are.I could point to a particularly illogical believer who insisted that what I said was wrong because he didn't like what he thought I'd said. This beleiver continued on and on in this irrational vein despite every attempt to correct him. If you really wanted to stop believers being thought of as irrational and emotional then you want to correct behaviour like that.