Bloggist plagiarizes me

[_GoodK]

In fact, you believe almost ANYTHING in order to keep this belief, including that aliens could have started this earth or universe.

Aliens could have started this.

Saying something could happen is not the same as believing it, or having faith in it.
You don't have to know the detailed history of the Earth and Universe in order to reject fairy tales - like Christianity - as an explanation.

Pascal's Wager makes this all too serious.

Pascal's Wager is a joke.

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Why aren't you a Mormon? Or a Muslim? Why Christianity?

[_Some Schmo]

Schmo

By argument I merely mean a discussion between two people with opposing viewpoints.

"It's long been my preference not to debate people on matters of faith, because the subject of faith itself is a debate ender."

This is an interesting statement because we all have faith. I showed you quite clearly the things you have faith in and I'll freely admit that I have faith in things.

*sigh*

No, you told me what you think I have faith in. That's your faith, not mine. You are projecting on me what you think my position is because you think you know what it is to not believe in any gods, despite a lack of direct experience with it.

I trust certain things based on established evidence, but I have faith in nothing. Faith is, as I said, irrational. I'm using the word trust to mean, "expect certain things based on past experience, even though technically, I don't know for sure" as opposed to how I use the word faith, which is “belief based on no evidence and usually rooted in a desire for something to be true, for whatever personal reason.”

"Faith itself is irrational, so that makes conversations about it irrational (if one of the parties is trying to defend it, that is..."

This coming from the guy that has faith that "one day" we'll know the answer to all the unanswerables.

I'd like you to dig up the quote where I said that.

I remember saying it could be possible that we understand how the universe came to be, but I don't remember asserting we would for sure. Again, I’m simply not willing to make something up to explain something we can’t explain. That’s religion’s job.

I'm also not trying to convert you, just attempting to show you the irrationalities you must subscribe to deny God. I did so clearly.

Well, I suppose you could think that if you buy into all the assumptions necessary to support it.

"All I will say is that there is evidence for natural occurrences, there is no evidence for supernatural occurrences, so the idea that god (something supernatural) is an explanation for this natural universe seems absurd, and I'll leave it at that."

And yet, in order to deny the supernatural you must subscribe to irrationalities such as begging the question and circular fallacies. Not to mention the alien assertion! But this clearly shows your dogma, just as you did on the last post. You've made up your mind that naturalism is everything and explains everything, this is your belief and you're sticking to it. In fact, you believe almost ANYTHING in order to keep this belief, including that aliens could have started this earth or universe.

*sigh* (again)

I'm starting to question your reading comprehension.

I did not assert that we were started by an alien race. What I said was that being started by aliens was a more reasonable explanation that some supernatural intelligence. That is because I'm making the assumption that aliens would be a natural phenomenon. Do I believe in aliens? Don't know. I think it's reasonable to assume they could exist, given that life on Earth exists, and we occurred naturally, but I don’t know.

And although I'm not willing to assert that naturalism is everything, it's the only thing at this point for which we have empirical evidence. That goes a long way with me. I don't hold on to that belief at all costs. If you can provide some evidence for the supernatural, by all means, bring it, and I'll change my view. Until then, I'm perfectly content to limit my understanding of the universe to natural terms and phenomenon, because that's all we've got (so far).

"I was about to respond to each of your points, but I've already noticed a pattern in this conversation of going round and round the same things, and I'm not interested in going on with it."

Actually, what was going on is that I was repeating my arguments because you were not refuting them or you were attempting to distract from them. I understand your frustration to the transcendental argument, because, as an atheist, you just have no argument against it except "It is because it is", which, obviously, isn't an argument at all.

I don't have an argument against the fantasy of Santa Claus either, except that it's not very plausible based on natural evidence, but that causes me no frustration. I’m just not willing to spend energy arguing with someone who insists on the existence of Santa Claus. I’ve got better things to do.

I'm curious why you'd feel the need to repeat your arguments if you thought I wasn't refuting them. What's the point?

And of course you don't think I was refuting them. That's because your mind is made up. Evidence to the contrary will not permeate your belief, so why would I expect a refutation of your "arguments" to do the same? Come on, now.

"Cypress, your mind is made up. Good luck with that. In the end, you're free to believe what you want, and I'm free to be indifferent that you believe what you do. It's all good."

Yes it is, and so is yours. You've shown that clearly. However, with my position, I'm able to be rational consistent AND have an explanation for the universe, you can do neither.

Yes, I think everyone understands that you think you have a passable explanation for it. We all know you think it's rational. That's another point you can't be moved on. I fail to care.

I also don't care if you think my mind is made up. It doesn’t matter if I tell you that I am open minded enough to change my point of view based on evidence. The problem with your position is that your faith based belief system disallows the accounting for new evidence. And you want to claim rationality and say I'm irrational? Alrighty, then. I appreciate the laugh.

We are both free to do and believe what we will, no one said any different, but, Schmo, it's not all good, Pascal's Wager makes this all too serious.

Ahhh, so now we get to the real heart and truth of the matter. Your beliefs are motivated by fear.

Why am I not surprised?