I want to believe in evolution

[Kidlicious]

"Atheism is just another religion" is a tired canard.

I would be tired of it too if I were an atheist, because it's true. Btw, I don't think christianity is a religion.

[kentonio]

I would be tired of it too if I were an atheist, because it's true. Btw, I don't think christianity is a religion.

In other news, black is white, up is down and Romney will win this years election.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The thing is though that it's not blind faith. That's what they make it out to be, like we were brainwashed or something. We have faith. It doesn't say anywhere in the bible that we have blind faith. It only says that we should be certain of what we believe. That's not blind faith. All of us have been chosen by God, in that all of our experience leads us to him. It is our experiences combined with other things like our ability to use common sense. If anyone had blind faith they would never grow as a christian.

I guess it depends on what "blind" means in blind faith. I think a leap of faith in anything is slightly blind, is it not? Because you don't know where you are going, but you know that's where you have to go.

[Elok]

Can we at least all agree that an action figure of the Hindu goddess Durga would be totally sweet if slightly sacrilegious? Accessories include a saddled tiger, a cow-devil and ten beautifully-crafted weapons. Now, if only manufacturers could make a durable figure with ten articulated arms...

[Aeson]

Robert: The fact that my daughter needs help to walk doesn't mean that I need help to walk.

Aeson: Again, you are horrible with analogies. A proper analogy to this would be to ask if person A and/or B can walk, without knowing whether they can or not. In this analogy, you are the person claiming that A can walk and B can't, without any evidence to actually support your assertions. Your reasoning is that you see lots of people walking, and thus A must walk ... but then you don't apply the same reasoning to B, you just assume they can't walk.

You're misunderstanding the purpose of my analogy.
First: notice that in this analogy I am not saying that 'A' can walk. I am not claiming at all that anybody can walk.

All I state is that if there's 1 fact: B can't walk;
Then we we can't conclude from that fact that A can't walk either.

If we agree that my daughter needs my help to walk, then that doesn't necessarily mean that I need help to walk as well.
So *if* we (hypothetically) agree that the universe needs a cause, then that doesn't necessarily mean that god needs a cause as well.
(it doesn't necessarily mean either that god does not need a cause)

Do you see what I'm trying to bring across?
There are 2 debates in this thread:
#1: does necessarily God need a cause if the universe needs a cause
#2: does the universe needs a cause

This post is only about #1

You were asking why it's hypocritical to require the universe to have a cause when God is not required (by the same person) to have a cause. You offered the analogy of your daughter walking in this context. I pointed out why your analogy does not apply to that context.

We can observe your daughter walking or not. We can observe you walking or not. We can observe very close analogs to each (other children and adults walking or not). We cannot observe anything about God or the hypothetical first cause of the universe at all. We can't observe anything even approaching an analog to either of these. As such, the only answer supported by evidence to whether either needed a first cause is "we don't know". As such your analogy didn't address the concept of why it's hypocritical (or not) to treat them differently.

Simply assuming one needs a first cause while the other doesn't is hypocritical because you are not treating them with the same deference to their unknown status in that specific regard.

[Aeson]

Can we at least all agree that an action figure of the Hindu goddess Durga would be totally sweet if slightly sacrilegious? Accessories include a saddled tiger, a cow-devil and ten beautifully-crafted weapons. Now, if only manufacturers could make a durable figure with ten articulated arms...

Growing up, my HeMan doll action figure had a saddled tiger, but no cow-devil. It was awesome, but putting smaller boobies on it might make it less awesome.

[Robert]

Robert: The fact that my daughter needs help to walk doesn't mean that I need help to walk.

Aeson: you are the person claiming that A can walk and B can't

Robert: I am not claiming at all that anybody can walk.

Aeson: We can observe your daughter walking or not. We can observe you walking or not.

Maybe you should start reading what I am actually writing instead of reading your own projection of what you think that I am writing.
And all answers you give only point out that you don't know/understand the point I'm trying to make.

Am I claiming that God needs no cause? No. did you got that? Read it again because in your mind I most probably have said: "God does 100% certainly not need a cause because I can walk while my daughter can't". Well: I did not state that.

If you want to continue this debate, then please *please* read what I am writing.

If we know the 2nd, then we do not nessecearily know the first.
If my daugher can't walk, then we still do not know if I can walk.
If the car is red, then we still do not know if the factory is red.
If we can observe that the universe needs a cause, then that does not automatically lead to the fact that God nessecarily needs a cause as well. <-- read it again, pay attention to the word 'not' and 'nessecarily'

Nobody can say: "If the universe needs a cause, then so does god"
Nobody can say: "if the universe needs a cause, then still god doesn't"

And to bring the analogy down to the kindergarden level you apparently demand from analogies: If we find the cripled bones of a girl who died 100,000 years ago so that we know that she could not walk, then we still don't know if her father could or could not walk.

[Aeson]

It's very telling that you start the conversation there, and cut out the "hypocrite" portion of your statement ... thus ignoring the actual context of the analogy you offered.

Aeson: The statements in regards to what allowances are being made for each option could be a valid way to point out the hypocrisy of someone claiming one needs a cause while the other doesn't.

Plomp: Why would that be a hypocrisy?
The fact that my daughter needs help to walk doesn't mean that I need help to walk.
Wait, now that's a hypocrite claim to make, why would one need help to walk while the other doesn't?

By "that" you are referencing treating one unknown as if it must be X, while taking another unknown (unknown in the exact same regard) and not claiming it must be X (or even claiming it is not X). That is hypocritical, because you are changing the logic you use based on what you are applying it to, without any evidence to support doing so.

Your "walking" analogy was in this context, and you designed it so it specifically did not address the issue at hand (hypocrisy) by eliminating the equivalency of unknown (treatment of which was where hypocritical comes from). The fact that it was surrounded by the hypocrisy statements makes it very clear what you were attempting to address.

[Robert]

Still ignoring the real topic, digging only into the flaws of analogies...

To me an analogy is only a way to explain my opinion and get my point across. Now I understand that you're not interested in what others write or think, and then the analogy becomes the main issue of the debate itself.

And my analogy did a very good job explaining my opinion/point.
But first you misread the analogy (claiming that I insisted that 'A' could walk, while I didn't)
Then you suddenly start to make up parts of my analogy ('we can know if you can walk and therefore your analogy is wrong', no: knowing if I could walk or not was not a part of the analogy) and dismiss my analogy b/c of your own made up elements

Then I try to strip as much as possible noise from the analogy and even repeat it with different simple analogies a couple of time.
And then I had to bring the analogy to kindergarden level (just still trying to get my point across) by saying:

"If we find cripled bones from a child 100,000 years ago" (which is just only another attempt to get my point across) and then you just ignore that and continue to whine about how wrong my original analogy was.

My analogy is the stupiest silliest analogy one ever made, does that make you happy? I don't care about the value of my analogy.
But did you get my point and can you finally respond to that?

kentonio back in post 233 of this thread was already very able to give a sane atheist answer to my statement and remaining an atheist/agnost despite that and even gave good reasons for his position.

Why are you so afraid to just do the same?
Is your opinion-system at stake if you have to give in on one tinny tiny hardly important part of it?

[Kidlicious]

In other news, black is white, up is down and Romney will win this years election.

Just keep on acting like the poster boy religious like atheist to make my point.

[kentonio]

Just keep on acting like the poster boy religious like atheist to make my point.

You have made so little sense in this thread, that I'm starting to quesion your grasp on reality, and that's not a dig at your religious views, just at your questionable sanity.

[Kidlicious]

I guess it depends on what "blind" means in blind faith. I think a leap of faith in anything is slightly blind, is it not? Because you don't know where you are going, but you know that's where you have to go.

Yes, and as you are going you realize that you were actually "blind" before you knew where to go.

[Kidlicious]

You have made so little sense in this thread, that I'm starting to quesion your grasp on reality, and that's not a dig at your religious views, just at your questionable sanity.

Keep it up.

[Aeson]

Still ignoring the real topic, digging only into the flaws of analogies...

To me an analogy is only a way to explain my opinion and get my point across. Now I understand that you're not interested in what others write or think, and then the analogy becomes the main issue of the debate itself.

And my analogy did a very good job explaining my opinion/point.

No, it didn't. Unless the point you were trying to make was that you can't address the subject matter without throwing up strawmen.

But first you misread the analogy (claiming that I insisted that 'A' could walk, while I didn't)

You have many times in this thread insisted that the universe needs a cause outside itself. You have not applied the same logic to God, even though both the universe and God have exactly the same evidence to support insisting they need a cause outside themselves.

Then you suddenly start to make up parts of my analogy ('we can know if you can walk and therefore your analogy is wrong', no: knowing if I could walk or not was not a part of the analogy) and dismiss my analogy b/c of your own made up elements

I was helping you to improve your analogy to actually be applicable to what you were trying to address. (Which was, why is it hypocritical to assume a first cause for the universe but not for God or vice versa.)

Then I try to strip as much as possible noise from the analogy and even repeat it with different simple analogies a couple of time.
And then I had to bring the analogy to kindergarden level (just still trying to get my point across) by saying:

"If we find cripled bones from a child 100,000 years ago" (which is just only another attempt to get my point across) and then you just ignore that and continue to whine about how wrong my original analogy was.

That is just another way of making the same inapplicable analogy. That being that we can observe something about the bones and come to supportable conclusions about that person's ability to walk.

It does not apply because we cannot make any observations that would support a conclusion that the universe must have had an outside cause or first cause. (Which is the point you've made many times in this thread, and the point at the heart of the hypocrisy question you were forming these analogies to address.)

My analogy is the stupiest silliest analogy one ever made, does that make you happy?

It wasn't silly. It just wasn't addressing the concepts that you were responding to, or supporting the claims you were making based off the reasoning you were trying to display.

I don't care about the value of my analogy.

That you've argued for a few posts now about it seems to suggest otherwise. In fact, it was the only point from my last (very long) response to you about a variety of topics that you chose to respond to. I think you really do care ...

But did you get my point and can you finally respond to that?

Your point was that we can observe a difference in walking ability between you and your daughter. This of course is a strawman, since we were discussing an issue where there is an inability to observe a difference in the manner you claim there is one.

Why are you so afraid to just do the same?
Is your opinion-system at stake if you have to give in on one tinny tiny hardly important part of it?

I have addressed all your statements in this thread. Just because you drop those topics and choose to only focus on the value of your analogies instead doesn't mean I ignored them.

[Wezil]

You have made so little sense in this thread, that I'm starting to quesion your grasp on reality, and that's not a dig at your religious views, just at your questionable sanity.

I reached that conclusion a couple years back. The boy's not right.

Was he busted by religion or drawn to religion because he was busted? I haven't decided yet.