[youtube] God fails to cure baby of blindness

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Really? A forum where christianity is assumed to be true and 'attacking belief' is a bannable offence. I can see why you'd want the discussion to take place there, all right.

But nobody would be attacking Christianity, or the beliefs of Christians, or Christians themselves. They'd be looking to have a discussion on theodicy.

Actually there's an ongoing discussion on theodicy there now -

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057584773

Bristolscale7

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But nobody would be attacking Christianity, or the beliefs of Christians, or Christians themselves. They'd be looking to have a discussion on theodicy.

Actually there's an ongoing discussion on theodicy there now -

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057584773

What a horrible "discussion"--fair play to MrPudding for sticking his head into that outhouse.

One eyed Jack

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

What a horrible "discussion"--fair play to MrPudding for sticking his head into that outhouse.

A 'horrible' discussion? That sounds to me like you would like to have a discussion about theodicy, but only on your terms. Well in that case then A&A is the more appropriate forum where your opinions can go unchallenged and validated and reinforced in an online echo chamber.

In that case, it's not discussion you want - it's validation of your opinions.

Bristolscale7

One eyed Jack wrote: »

A 'horrible' discussion? That sounds to me like you would like to have a discussion about theodicy, but only on your terms. Well in that case then A&A is the more appropriate forum where your opinions can go unchallenged and validated and reinforced in an online echo chamber.

In that case, it's not discussion you want - it's validation of your opinions.

Go read this:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/

And then we can have a discussion.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm more comfortable in keeping my beliefs to myself though, that's why I don't feel any need to defend anything to other people.

That, and the fact that many of the religious things people believe are entirely unsubstantiated in even the smallest way. Therefore there is likely no way to defend them in the first place, so an "I keep my beliefs to myself" narrative dresses that fact up to look good.

So while some might like to suggest they do not defend such beliefs because they do not feel the need..... the simple fact is that until even the tiniest shred of evidence, argument, data or reasoning can be offered to substantiate beliefs based on the existence of a non-human intelligent and intentional agency........ the real narrative is that they do not defend those beliefs because they simply can not do so.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What makes me wonder is why they feel a need to have everyone else know they're anti-religious.

I am not sure it is that complex to understand the difference between beliefs that people merely scoff at (such as alien abductions with anal probing or a still living Elvis) , and beliefs that people take an "anti" position to.

The fact is that beliefs have real world consequences. Some are private, some have influence in the real world on real people and real society.

And where those effects are perceived to be, or shown to be, detrimental in some fashion.... people are not only warranted in taking an "anti" position to them.... but in some cases morally obliged to do so.

Which part of that leaves you wondering exactly?

I myself would love to leave religion and the religious alone to their own devices and never consider or worry about religion ever again. I. Am. Simply. Not. Let.

Every realm of inquiry or discourse I AM actually interested in.... morality and ethics.... sex, sexuality and sexual education.... women's rights..... science, medicine and medical progress..... politics..... equality and justice.......... education..... the list goes on.......... are areas that have strong detrimental religious influence, presence, or the religious waving their personal hobby around as if it should bear some relevance on how we proceed or conduct ourselves in those areas.

So I am "anti religious" in those areas in the EXACT same way as I would be "anti" any unsubstantiated crap that people wandered into those areas of discourse waving around in an attempt to influence content, progress or policy.

Micheal Nugent said it well here when he pointed out that no one has an issue with people stamp collecting, nor do we align ourselves as non-stamp collectors. But the moment groups of people start claiming the post office created the universe, or we should all be consulting our stamp collections before making moral or policy decisions.... you very much will see people aligning under a term like "a-philatelist".... and defining themselves as being "anti philately"

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I keep my beliefs to myself, it'd be nice if others kept their anti-religious sentiments to themselves, but I don't expect they will any time soon.

YOU might claim to keep it to yourself but MANY others do not. And how. So your point here is useless. Just because YOU do, does not mean the rest of us need be silent on the issue. When the religious community as a whole keep their personal faith personal, and keep it out of our halls of power, education and science..... then and only then can you meaningfully request that we do the same.

But this "I do it so all you should too" narrative is useless. When all of you do, then all of us will too, is more realistic.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'd consider their anti-religious waffling a symptom of crippling insecurity and immaturity tbh.

I am sure you would, but you considering it to be so does not make it so. There are genuine reasons, which I adumbrated above, for being anti religious. And your hand waving dismissal of those concerns does not make US the insecure or immature ones.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's the reason why I feel no reason to present an argument in the first place.

That and, as I said, the fact you do not in any way appear to HAVE one to present either way. But do not take that personally. I have not seen a single theist yet who does.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nope, it's a very strong indication that I don't get into an argument with someone who's opinion I know already isn't for changing, because it's not only mentally, but physically exhausting.

A nice narrative, and one that can not be rebutted where and when it is actually true. The issue I have with it though is that many theists ASSUME it to be true just so they can hide behind this narrative.

But I know that I, and many many atheists I have met (which is much higher than average given by involvements with AI and AAI and other organisations).... to the point of being well in the majority..... are not actually invested in the anti god or anti religious position and would be happy to be convinced otherwise were there evidence to do so.

I am not invested in there being no god. I am not invested in there being a god. I am invested in knowing what the truth is. So if there is a god..... then I would like to know that. The simple fact is that no one, least of all you, is presenting a single shred of an iota of argument, evidence, data or reasoning that lends even a modicum of credibility to the claim there is one.

But my acknowledging that fact in NO WAY suggests that my position is "not for changing". It very much is for changing. Any time anyone wants to change it. And I openly request they do so because if I am wrong.... I genuinely want to correct the error. As I do in ANY realm of discourse on ANY subject.

So when I hear someone trotting out the "your opinion cant be changed so I won't bother to try" narrative I realize often such people are really saying "I recognize my arguments on this subject are so weak or non-existent.... and you are robust in your evaluation of substantiation....... so I will not bother making the attempt".

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The fact that I would be vastly outnumbered

Does not seem to stop you on numerous other topics though. Which kind of makes this excuse sound more like a "decision first, justification second" thing than a "here are the reasons for the decision" thing. Especially given how prolific you are in terms of post numbers and post lengths on many threads over this account and your previous one.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If people are looking for an argument about something related to Christianity, then the Christianity forum is a better place for it

Just to give a small example for comparison here..... in all my time and posts on this forum I have VERY few infractions. I would not even need all of one hand to count them. Yet two of them come from that forum and one was for merely using the line "belief in a deity no one has provided a scrap of a shred of evidence for".

If you think that sounds like a forum more conducive to debate on the subject then I think Hotblack Desiato has it EXACTLY right in post #151 above as to the quality of that position, and the motivations for holding it. Suffice to say I do not think THIS is the echo chamber with people reinforcing their positions. Right accusation, wrong target.

I find THIS area of the forum to be much more open and welcoming in terms of who they accept and what they accept them saying. I also find when people step out of line the infraction or ban hammer does not come crashing instantly down but the powers that be step in, especially on users with clean records and histories, to modify or correct the behavior first.

One eyed Jack

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Go read this:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/

And then we can have a discussion.

I read it the first time you linked to it already?

Was there something I was supposed to pay particular attention to that you wanted to point out?

I don't get why you want me to go and read something anyway before I have a discussion with you about something you wanted to start a discussion on?

In the opening post it was a video dump, and I was supposed to guess at what you were getting at. Now you throw up a link, and I'm still supposed to guess what your point is. Is that normally how you conduct a discussion?

"I'll just throw out some random shít, and if you want me to explain what I'm talking about, I'll direct you to read some more random shít while I'm still not making any points myself, and I don't have to present any. I just want you to argue something which I haven't presented".

That's a poor attempt to start a discussion IMO, and it hasn't risen above the level of the opening post yet.

King Mob

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nope, it's a very strong indication that I don't get into an argument with someone who's opinion I know already isn't for changing, because it's not only mentally, but physically exhausting.

Why do you say that?
Why would atheists not be open to the possibility that god can be good and reconciled with the problem of evil if you can show it?
My atheism isn't dependent on god being good or evil. I don't think many other's are.
Even if you could show a successful theodicy, it still wouldn't prove god's existence. And even if we could shoot down every single theodicy it wouldn't exclude the possibility of an evil god.

The problem of evil can be discussed without running into the notion of god's existence, and everyone here is willing to be shown how the problem can be solved. You probably won't convince anyone to believe in god, but it would be possible to show that a successful theodicy exists.

And if you are concerned about not being able to convince anyone, why do you think what you are doing now will convince anyone?
Now it just looks exactly like you are dodging the issue you can't address.

Continuing to dodge the issue won't convince anyone, and you have no concerns about sticking with that tactic.

So there's another of your excuses that rings false.

One eyed Jack

King Mob wrote: »

Why do you say that?
Why would atheists not be open to the possibility that god can be good and reconciled with the problem of evil if you can show it?
My atheism isn't dependent on god being good or evil. I don't think many other's are.
Even if you could show a successful theodicy, it still wouldn't prove god's existence. And even if we could shoot down every single theodicy it wouldn't exclude the possibility of an evil god.

The problem of evil can be discussed without running into the notion of god's existence, and everyone here is willing to be shown how the problem can be solved. You probably won't convince anyone to believe in god, but it would be possible to show that a successful theodicy exists.

And if you are concerned about not being able to convince anyone, why do you think what you are doing now will convince anyone?
Now it just looks exactly like you are dodging the issue you can't address.

Continuing to dodge the issue won't convince anyone, and you have no concerns about sticking with that tactic.

So there's another of your excuses that rings false.

Asked and answered your own question.

That's exactly why I say that, about people who identify as atheist on this forum mind, I'd never assume people who are atheist are generally so closed minded and prejudiced that they will have all the answers they want already and aren't willing to listen to anyone but themselves, and anything anyone tells them that may contradict their prejudices, that person must be making excuses.

You aren't by any means the only poster having trouble with the concept.

MrPudding

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

What a horrible "discussion"--fair play to MrPudding for sticking his head into that outhouse.

Yeah. Do I regret posting there. I thought it was suppose to be a discussion, I answered a deft question and had a poster whine about the rules. Granted, I did not get a telling off fm the mods, but I think that really sums up the forum. The particular poster that went "oh I'm telling, you said something naughty" was the same poster that was telling us on a thread in this forum that we should really talk about that subject on the other forum. I was dubious, but I gave the benefit of the doubt.

MrP

Absolam

MrPudding wrote: »

Yeah. Do I regret posting there. I thought it was suppose to be a discussion, I answered a deft question and had a poster whine about the rules. Granted, I did not get a telling off fm the mods, but I think that really sums up the forum. The particular poster that went "oh I'm telling, you said something naughty" was the same poster that was telling us on a thread in this forum that we should really talk about that subject on the other forum. I was dubious, but I gave the benefit of the doubt.

Oh now, you didn't answer the question, you twisted in order to offer a point that flew directly in the face of the Charter. And let's be fair, it would seem pretty apparent that you joined the discussion just to offer that point, and demonstrate that posters on the forum couldn't have the discussion they're currently having because someone like you would deliberately derail it with such a point. I'll admit the notion of atheists fulfilling prophecies is fairly amusing, but it's a long way to go for a mediocre joke.

I think it's quite a stretch to claim any poster went "oh I'm telling, you said something naughty"... actually, not so much a stretch as a great big fib. But if you think different, since this is A&A, proof would be an acceptable rebuttal; until then maybe we can just mosey along on the basis that you feel a little put out at being picked up on your misbehavior so quickly?

Granted you didn't get a telling off from the mods, but lets not pretend that after your posts about the existance of God, there wasn't a mod note which included direction about posting about the existence of God, eh?

Delirium wrote: »

MOD NOTE
The topic of the thread is theodicy, and their relevance to Christianity.
It's not about creationism/existence of God. There is already a superthread for that topic if posters wish to discuss it.
It certainly isn't a place to challenge the charter. Which if posters see breaches of, it's best to report them instead of engaging in backseat moderation.
Everyone please try to keep to the topic.
Thanks for your attention.

I think it's fair to say that with posts like

MrPudding wrote: »

There are no gods and the universe doesn't care. That provides a better answer than the christian world view.

no one could pretend you were giving anyone or anything the benefit of the doubt

King Mob

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Asked and answered your own question.

That's exactly why I say that, about people who identify as atheist on this forum mind, I'd never assume people who are atheist are generally so closed minded and prejudiced that they will have all the answers they want already and aren't willing to listen to anyone but themselves, and anything anyone tells them that may contradict their prejudices, that person must be making excuses.

You aren't by any means the only poster having trouble with the concept.

Not accepting something before it's shown or substantiated is not prejudice.
Coming to a conclusion based on observation is not prejudice.

We're calling your excuses what they are because that's what they appear to be.
You say that the issue can't be discussed on an atheist forum because atheists won't accept gods existence. It has been explained to you why this isn't the case. The issue can be discussed as a hypothetical. Atheists are more than willing to accept that god can be reconciled with the problem of evil, since is still wouldn't mean he exists.

You say that you're afraid of being ganged up on for disagreeing.
But you have no issue doing so on this thread or others. Why would this issue be different?

You say that it's pointless to try and change atheist's mind.
But it's been explained that there's no reason why it couldn't change. Also you've no problem doing this by trying to change our minds about you giving excuses without actually demonstrating what we're asking for.
Do you expect us to believe that you really can address the problem of evil, but you just don't want to without you showing that?
If not, then what is your point on this thread?

You say that it's too taxing for you to engage in the discussion.
But you've been posting in this thread for umpteen pages when it would have been far easier just to discuss the issue.

The reasons you are giving don't make any sense, so they ring hollow. If you really did have a good solution to the problem of evil you'd have no issue detailing it.
If you truly believed your own reasoning, you'd have blurted it out immediately as if it was invincible.
It looks exactly like you are making excuses because you have no confidence in your position.
Experience tells us that this is most likely the case.

I'm willing to be shown wrong, but the only way sure to do that is to stop giving transparent excuses and present your case.
But not going to be holding my breath.

One eyed Jack

King Mob wrote: »

I'm willing to be shown wrong

Current evidence suggests otherwise tbh.

And it's not because people are atheist that I don't have a discussion about theodicy. It's the fact that I don't believe some posters here, in spite of their claims, are really all that interested in discussing theodicies themselves. I'm still wondering when Bristolscale is going to start, but the only reason I replied to this thread again is because while we often disagree, Hotblack doesn't behave like an arsehole about it. That's a fairly large contributing factor in my decision to engage with someone, in any ideaspace really, even offline.

I'm done replying here now tbh, because while I don't think of yourself as an a-hole, the discussion hasn't started, and isn't going anywhere.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Current evidence suggests otherwise tbh.

Ah the old invincible narrative. You do not argue your positions, give a series of cop out excuses for not arguing your positions, then claim that the evidence shows that the opinions of others can not be changed.

This is cake AND eat it stuff, and a total canard. As long as you maintain the MO of not arguing your positions, you can simultaneously maintain the narrative that people will be closed minded to you arguing your positions.

Aside possibly from yourself, I honestly do not know who you think it buying this. You are transparently dodging engagement by making up (often petty) excuses for not doing so. Excuses designed solely to make it sound like the fault lies with the target audience and not yourself.

I have no issue with people who do not or can not engage. Why would I. Nothing, least of all me, is forcing them. But when such people engage in excuses that are designed to blame failings in OTHERS for their own non-engagement.... I feel they should be called on this.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm done replying here now tbh

Oh joy, another chance to put "nozzferrahhtoos first law of internet forum posting" to the test.

MrPudding

Absolam wrote: »

Oh now, you didn't answer the question, you twisted in order to offer a point that flew directly in the face of the Charter. And let's be fair, it would seem pretty apparent that you joined the discussion just to offer that point, and demonstrate that posters on the forum couldn't have the discussion they're currently having because someone like you would deliberately derail it with such a point. I'll admit the notion of atheists fulfilling prophecies is fairly amusing, but it's a long way to go for a mediocre joke.

I think it's quite a stretch to claim any poster went "oh I'm telling, you said something naughty"... actually, not so much a stretch as a great big fib. But if you think different, since this is A&A, proof would be an acceptable rebuttal; until then maybe we can just mosey along on the basis that you feel a little put out at being picked up on your misbehavior so quickly?

Granted you didn't get a telling off from the mods, but lets not pretend that after your posts about the existance of God, there wasn't a mod note which included direction about posting about the existence of God, eh?

I think it's fair to say that with posts like

no one could pretend you were giving anyone or anything the benefit of the doubt

Meh. My post was in direct response to a question, and this is exactly why, as was pointed out to you, it is kind of pointless having discussions of that nature on that forum because all you need to do to close it down is to ask a question that the atheist can't answer without without breaking the charter. My post wasn't a simple declaration that there was no gods, or an attempt to upset the delicate sensibilities of the christians on that forum... A poster suggested that christianity was the best explanation for what we see in the universe and if I thought differently I would have to explain it. I did, and that was my post.

MrP

King Mob

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Current evidence suggests otherwise

What evidence? When I said I had evidence I presented all the reason we had for not buying your excuses.
Saying evidence exists doesnt make it so.

Further, go all the way back, plenty of people tried to get the discussion going but where met with excuse after excuse. Now you are saying its because you've decided that somw posters, who you arent going to name, aren't worthy of gracing with your opinion.
Do you think this is convincing?

The reason you aren't engaging in discussion is because you know your position won't stand up to scrutiny.
More excuses won't change people's mind on this.

Absolam

MrPudding wrote: »

Meh. My post was in direct response to a question, and this is exactly why, as was pointed out to you, it is kind of pointless having discussions of that nature on that forum because all you need to do to close it down is to ask a question that the atheist can't answer without without breaking the charter. My post wasn't a simple declaration that there was no gods, or an attempt to upset the delicate sensibilities of the christians on that forum... A poster suggested that christianity was the best explanation for what we see in the universe and if I thought differently I would have to explain it. I did, and that was my post.

Not entirely true though... 'meh' notwithstanding, eh?
It was put to you that if you don't like the Christian point of view on "Why does God allow bad things to happen?" you might then happily provide a better one. "There are no gods and the universe doesn't care" isn't a better point of view on (it isn't a point of view on) "Why does Good allow bad things to happen", it's a point of view on the existence of God. You could have tried to answer the question without breaking the Charter (for instance by, as has been repeatedly suggested in this thread, simply allowing the hypothetical existence of God as put forward in the question) but you chose to avoid the question instead, and put forward your view on the universe.

MrPudding

Absolam wrote: »

Not entirely true though... 'meh' notwithstanding, eh?
It was put to you that if you don't like the Christian point of view on "Why does God allow bad things to happen?" you might then happily provide a better one. "There are no gods and the universe doesn't care" isn't a better point of view on (it isn't a point of view on) "Why does Good allow bad things to happen", it's a point of view on the existence of God. You could have tried to answer the question without breaking the Charter (for instance by, as has been repeatedly suggested in this thread, simply allowing the hypothetical existence of God as put forward in the question) but you chose to avoid the question instead, and put forward your view on the universe.

Well that is not quit right. I am happy to have a discussion where the existence of gods are assumed for the purposes of the discussion, it is done all the time here, and it isn't really a problem. But this was a very specific question, here is exactly what I was responding to:

solodeogloria wrote:

[...]

The Christian worldview is the only one that I have come across that presents a tangible answer to human suffering. [...]

What I'd say to you is if you don't like the Christian point of view on this issue, then happily provide a better one.

The post is suggesting that christianity, or the christian view point, is the ONLY world view that explains human suffering. It goes on to ask for an alternative. Now I have interpreted "if you don't like the christian point of view" as if I don't believe it works or does provide an explanation.

Clearly the "christian point of view" requires gods, or at least one god to exist, but the poster has asked for an alternative and the alternative, that there are no gods and that the universe doesn't care about human suffering is an alternative viewpoint.

And of course that is another point of view on why gods allow bad things to happen. That there are no gods is a perfectly valid suggestion for why gods allow bad things to happen. I could have made some other suggestions, which assumed the existence of gods, but I interpreted the question as looking for an explanation outside of christianity.

MrP

Bristolscale7

The Christian worldview is the only one that I have come across that presents a tangible answer to human suffering. [...]

Wow. That's about par for the course in terms of critical and reflective thinking over there.

edit: what's so sad is that the above quote implies that the person only arrived at Christianity after a long, perhaps painful process of evaluating all the other explanations for human suffering: Judaism has an interesting but just not quite compelling explanation for it; Islam's explanation was found altogether wanting; Buddhism's offering was coherent but intangible.

pathetic.

Absolam

MrPudding wrote: »

Well that is not quit right. I am happy to have a discussion where the existence of gods are assumed for the purposes of the discussion, it is done all the time here, and it isn't really a problem. But this was a very specific question, here is exactly what I was responding to:

Actually, here's what you were responding to:

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

If God is God, an objective being beyond you or I it doesn't matter what you or I might prefer. What matters is what is true of this world, and what God declares about Himself.

The Christian worldview is the only one that I have come across that presents a tangible answer to human suffering. Not only that death and suffering and pain and loss entered the world through human sinfulness, but also that our God came into the world in His Son Jesus to suffer pain, and death and loss on our account so that we might be put into a restored relationship with God, but also that all things will become new on the last day.

The video deals with the question - "Why does God allow bad things to happen?". This question presumes that we are entitled to have good things happen to us by virtue of our merit. This isn't true from a Christian point of view. As a result the preacher asks for the right question to be asked to bring the right assumptions to the table. We don't deserve God's common grace at all in the many good things we experience in this life. We deserve rightfully God's wrath for our rebellion against Him. Yet, He still graciously offers us His Son and that rescue and that eternity with Him if we accept it.

Now, will the average atheist like that answer? Probably not, because I suspect the average atheist doesn't believe that he is guilty for any sin or any wrongdoing. The average atheist doesn't believe that they need forgiveness. But also, most crucially, I've found that the average atheist also doesn't have any form of explanation for the human suffering that exists in this world other than "life sucks". The Christian on the other hand can provide a robust framework for understanding these things that accounts to why bad things happen and can point to the clear person of Jesus Christ in history to show what God has done to bring all things to Himself and to make all things new.

What I'd say to you is if you don't like the Christian point of view on this issue, then happily provide a better one.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

MrPudding wrote: »

The post is suggesting that christianity, or the christian view point, is the ONLY world view that explains human suffering. It goes on to ask for an alternative. Now I have interpreted "if you don't like the christian point of view" as if I don't believe it works or does provide an explanation.

Nope, the poster was asking you if you don't like the Christian point of view on "Why does God allow bad things to happen?" you might then happily provide a better one. It does come across a little more clearly when you quote the whole thing, I'd say, especially if you acknowledge the subject of the thread is "Theodicy", not "Does God exist"

MrPudding wrote: »

Clearly the "christian point of view" requires gods, or at least one god to exist, but the poster has asked for an alternative and the alternative, that there are no gods and that the universe doesn't care about human suffering is an alternative viewpoint.

The poster didn't ask for an alternative to the existence of gods though, clearly; an alternative to the Christian view of why God allows bad things to happen. Of course, I understand why you'd want to turn the question to your own purpose, but you did evade the question to introduce the point you wanted.

MrPudding wrote: »

And of course that is another point of view on why gods allow bad things to happen. That there are no gods is a perfectly valid suggestion for why gods allow bad things to happen. I could have made some other suggestions, which assumed the existence of gods, but I interpreted the question as looking for an explanation outside of christianity.

Nope, it really isn't. Gods that don't exist don't allow bad things to happen, because they don't exist. Only gods that exist (even the ones outside of Christianity) can allow bad things to happen. But let's not pretend you didn't know that when you evaded the question...

Absolam

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Wow. That's about par for the course in terms of critical and reflective thinking over there. edit: what's so sad is that the above quote implies that the person only arrived at Christianity after a long, perhaps painful process of evaluating all the other explanations for human suffering: Judaism has an interesting but just not quite compelling explanation for it; Islam's explanation was found altogether wanting; Buddhism's offering was coherent but intangible. pathetic.

That's maybe a bit more assumption that the post really deserved, but if you think you could bring some critical and reflective thinking to Solos analysis of his faith, he seems well inclined to engage in discussion. Or you could stay here and cast aspersions from afar

looksee

I believe I can fly

...Prove it

I don't have to prove it, I believe I can and my belief is complete. You prove I am wrong.

...You know I can't prove a negative, all you have to do is show us you can fly.

I have said I believe I can fly, you can't prove that is not my belief.

...That's a different argument, you said you could fly.

No, I said I believe I can, and I believe you can too.

...I know I can't fly!

But I believe that you can and I can, we all can, all you have to do is believe.

...That does't make any sense, why should I believe I can fly when I know I can't?

You see, you refuse to believe! You say you can't, but all you have to do is believe.

...So if I believe I can fly I will actually be able to fly?

Demanding proof like that is evidence in a lack of faith in your belief. You have to believe totally.

...Er, right.

nozzferrahhtoo

^ Speaking of which there a link I read a few months ago where someone equated all the religious arguments into a conversation between two guys. I know that is vague but maybe someone knows what I am talking about and can remind me where the link is. I wanted it twice recently and could not find it again.

In the conversation, between work mates if I recall, one of the work mates was suggesting the other should love, or owe money, to some other third guy who was not there. And that if you did not love or pay this guy you were going to suffer some consequence or other. I think it was a punch in the face or something.

And it went on generally in that vein for awhile, trotting out equivalents of many theist arguments like pascals wager and the like. I think (like the bible) there was a moment in it where the guy produced a receipt or some proof, and the validation that the proof was genuine was that written on the proof was the claim it was genuine.

Man I realize how horrifically vague that is but I trust in the Hive Mind!

robindch

looksee wrote: »

I believe I can fly

You can't fly because you hate the idea of flying!

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

I believe I can fly...Prove it I don't have to prove it, I believe I can and my belief is complete. You prove I am wrong....You know I can't prove a negative, all you have to do is show us you can fly. I have said I believe I can fly, you can't prove that is not my belief. ...That's a different argument, you said you could fly. No, I said I believe I can, and I believe you can too. ...I know I can't fly! But I believe that you can and I can, we all can, all you have to do is believe. ...That does't make any sense, why should I believe I can fly when I know I can't? You see, you refuse to believe! You say you can't, but all you have to do is believe. ...So if I believe I can fly I will actually be able to fly? Demanding proof like that is evidence in a lack of faith in your belief. You have to believe totally. ...Er, right.

You forgot the bit at the start. 'Hey.. there's people over there who believe they can fly. Let's be smug about being like other people who don't believe they can fly. Go on... tell them you heard they think they have wings and you can see they don't. Go on... it's cool'.


Or... we could summarise this as inviting people over to discuss a concept you don't believe in, and won't accept their foundation for, knowing they won't discuss it without that foundation being a given, isn't likely to work out well?
If so, I wholeheartedly agree

pauldla

One does not need to be smug to mock religious logic, surely? Would not the charge of 'smugness' be better reserved for those who believe they have a direct and personal relationship with the lord and creator of the universe?

Absolam

True, one doesn't need to be smug to mock religious logic, one doesn't even need to mock religious logic Nevertheless one poster thought mocking theists with a video of a cute baby merited a thread, and when another thought they could turn it into a bit of a sneer at their own idea of theodicy, it all went (amazingly, even further) downhill from there. Entertaining in a sort of car-crash tv kind of way I suppose. Those who believe they have a direct and personal relationship with the lord and creator of the universe seem to have by and large wandered off unscathed...

King Mob

Absolam wrote: »

Those who believe they have a direct and personal relationship with the lord and creator of the universe seem to have by and large wandered off unscathed...

And thus, by making excuses and not presenting any points somehow proved that there is a consistent, reasonable explanation for the problem of evil.

It's only our own smugness that prevents us from seeing that!

pauldla

Absolam wrote: »

True, one doesn't need to be smug to mock religious logic, one doesn't even need to mock religious logic

One cannot help but mock religious logic; it only becomes sensitive when one’s own religious logic is being mocked. And if that religion is one that asserts its right to determine the nature of government, business and civil society, then some may argue that one is duty-bound to mock it (though this, of course, can be an extremely dangerous activity).

Absolam wrote: »

Nevertheless one poster thought mocking theists with a video of a cute baby merited a thread, and when another thought they could turn it into a bit of a sneer at their own idea of theodicy, it all went (amazingly, even further) downhill from there. Entertaining in a sort of car-crash tv kind of way I suppose. Those who believe they have a direct and personal relationship with the lord and creator of the universe seem to have by and large wandered off unscathed...

…he said, sneeringly. So it would seem you do not object to sneers or smugness per se? Do you regard ‘those who believe they have a direct and personal relationship with the lord and creator of the universe’ as being smug?

Absolam

King Mob wrote: »

And thus, by making excuses and not presenting any points somehow proved that there is a consistent, reasonable explanation for the problem of evil. It's only our own smugness that prevents us from seeing that!

Really? I didn't get that impression at all I must admit.

Absolam

pauldla wrote: »

One cannot help but mock religious logic; it only becomes sensitive when one’s own religious logic is being mocked. And if that religion is one that asserts its right to determine the nature of government, business and civil society, then some may argue that one is duty-bound to mock it (though this, of course, can be an extremely dangerous activity).

Oh, of course one can. Lots of people practically never do it at all! And I very much doubt that Bristolscale7s use of the video has done anything at all to help the cause of good governance, business or civil society.

pauldla wrote: »

…he said, sneeringly. So it would seem you do not object to sneers or smugness per se? Do you regard ‘those who believe they have a direct and personal relationship with the lord and creator of the universe’ as being smug?

Ah... not so much sneeringly as mockingly in fairness. And who can object to sneers and smugness per se? I'm sure there as plenty of those who believe they have a direct and personal relationship with the lord and creator of the universe that are just as smug as those who don't... it's reasonably apparent smugness isn't restricted to those who are of a religious persuasion. Or those who are not.