Possibly Non-Existent Deity Lowers the Boom
Oh, I got a message from Yahweh or God or Allah or someone cosmic and hairy? He/She/It had a little extra time and was browsing the intarwebs for fun, and, apparently, He/She/It reads really fast and was disturbed by the massive wasteful duplication in a certain type of discussion/wank. He/She/It had a message, which I am passing along to you. (Don't shoot the messenger, okay?)
Discussion about whether God exists is now forbidden, or rather, internet exchanges which contain these ideas:
God's existence can be proven. Here is my proof; let me show you it.
- The best minds in history have been working on this for 10,000 years and it has never convinced anyone who didn't want to be convinced. Don't embarrass yourself by taking up this one. You'll sound like that guy who writes to heads of physics departments to explain how the 2nd law of Thermodynamic is WRONG, and he alone figured it out.
God's existence cannot be proven logically or scientifically, therefore any rational person must conclude He does not exist.
- B does not follow directly from A, yet it is stated as a completed proof, and says, by implication, that if you believe that unprovable things can exist, you are not rational. I have never met a man or woman who was completely rational, BUT I will allow that one might exist even if I have not seen one myself.
No more picking extreme examples of atheists' or believers' bad behavior and tarring the entire group with their transgressions.
- No evoking the Crusades, no evoking Hitler, Communism, Stalin, or snake-handling. No, no, no. It is poor logic is attribute the characteristics of some particles that fall under a definition to all the particles: my dog has three legs, therefore all dogs are tripedal.
*huffily* Of course I can behave morally without the structure of a deity's edict.
- Of course you can. Even sociopaths can behave morally, if they need to. The argument that there can be no morality without the substrate of God's Law is unprovable because God is unprovable, therefore getting your panties in a bunch when a believer offers the idea is wasteful. Please just let it go by.
I know God exists because I have personally felt His Presence.
- This statement is not testable by any objective means. "Trust me, I saw it," is not proof of anything. It convinced you, but will not convince others.
Forbidden are any rebuttals in which belief in God is compared to belief in unicorns, purple hamsters from space, invisible dragons, etc.
- It's tired. It was amusing when Carl Sagan did it 30 years ago, but it's a transparent attempt to make your opponent look childish. It's also poor logic, because the argument only works if we do not examine the assumption that unicorns, purple space hamster and dragons cannot exist. Purple hamsters are red herrings, so to speak. Bec has a July 2007 rant on the dragon/unicorn thing for masochists and rant enthusiasts: http://bec-87rb.livejournal.com/33625.html#cutid1
- The Jeffersonian marketplace of ideas notwithstanding, it is now possible for several intelligent educated people to approach a thorny problem such as the existence of God, come up with several different approaches, and a variety of conclusions and still all be intelligent and educated. Your ad hominem attack privileges are revoked, netizens, because you abused them. Now, go to your rooms, wankers, and keep those typing fingers above the covers where I can see them.