Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My problem with Evangelical Atheism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • i think it is a bit of arrogance. for the same reason i think humans beliving themselves to be, out of all the species on the planet, the only one important enough for god to have an emotional investment in.
    also, god is a dick. at least by most standards. if god wasn't a dick we wouldnt have the negative things nessesary for the world to keep spinning. like disease and volcanoes and snow days :P. but jsut because he is a dick doesnt mean he isnt a god.
    All uses of You, You're, and etc are generic unless specified otherwise.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by siead_lietrathua View Post
      i think it is a bit of arrogance.
      It is only arrogance if God actually exists and only if its the Abrahamic God. Like I said, you cannot call it arrogance if the thing we're supposedly being arrogant towards cannot be verified in the first place. You must actually have God first before you can say we're being arrogant.


      Originally posted by siead_lietrathua View Post
      for the same reason i think humans beliving themselves to be, out of all the species on the planet, the only one important enough for god to have an emotional investment in.
      I don't think I've ever actually seen anyone express that particular opinion. -.-


      also, god is a dick. at least by most standards. if god wasn't a dick we wouldnt have the negative things nessesary for the world to keep spinning. like disease and volcanoes and snow days :P. but jsut because he is a dick doesnt mean he isnt a god.
      There are so many things wrong with this statement I'm not sure where to start. Disease, volcanoes and snow days all have explanations and mechanisms behind them for starters. "Negatives" are just results of the system we don't like. As for God being a dick, you are once again putting the cart before the horse. Arbrahamic God is *not* the only God around and is not even the only God within the Abrahamic religions themselves. This is one of the biggest fundamental problems. You cannot declare one God the real God, as that makes that one God a complete dickhead for randomly picking one group of people to favour with his presence knowing full well what would happen to the rest.

      Comment


      • to address most of your post in one swoop, i am not capatalizing God, and am not refering to the abrahamic god exclusivly. if i was refering to God i would use His name properly. i am simply too much of a lazyass to type out god/goddess/diety of choice every single time. i personally belive that there are multiple dieties.
        i have seen other religions that pray or otherwise expect their dieties to assist them in their lives with mundane shit, and i do personally consider it arrogant. your diety doesnt care if you win the lotto or get that new car or job, they got other shit to deal with.

        to the seond line part, i've seen that opinion plenty. but i do live in a yuppe-dick town so that may be why. i hear alot about how god made this world for US. which is bullshit because if he made the world for us we wouldnt have those natural negatives. we are simply part of the world.

        to the third one, i am again not only refering to the abrahamic faiths. other faiths do have their deities that cause chaos and discord as well. those dieties are dicks too, from a human standpoint. but from a global standpoint it all balances.
        All uses of You, You're, and etc are generic unless specified otherwise.

        Comment


        • That you repeatedly refuse to answer very nearly proves you cannot. Vague talk about chaos and so forth is not helpful. You claim observable evidence shows x. You need, therefore, to have some idea of how the observable evidence would be different. You don't, therefore your "evidence" is nothing of the kind. Admit it and be done, or else cough up the difference.
          "My in-laws are country people and at night you can hear their distinctive howl."

          Comment


          • Originally posted by siead_lietrathua View Post
            i have seen other religions that pray or otherwise expect their dieties to assist them in their lives with mundane shit, and i do personally consider it arrogant. your diety doesnt care if you win the lotto or get that new car or job, they got other shit to deal with.
            Well, no argument here. That is pretty stupid. -.-


            Originally posted by siead_lietrathua View Post
            to the seond line part, i've seen that opinion plenty. but i do live in a yuppe-dick town so that may be why. i hear alot about how god made this world for US. which is bullshit because if he made the world for us we wouldnt have those natural negatives. we are simply part of the world.
            Ah, see there's none of that around here.


            Originally posted by siead_lietrathua View Post
            to the third one, i am again not only refering to the abrahamic faiths. other faiths do have their deities that cause chaos and discord as well. those dieties are dicks too, from a human standpoint. but from a global standpoint it all balances.
            The problem again is that you are suggesting divine ( or not so divine ) purpose behind *everything* that happens. Good and bad. First of all if there were multiple deities to this, shit would fly off the handle pretty damn quick >.>. Second of all, everything that happens is the result of something else. Simple as that. Not the intentional result of some deity's actions.

            It'd be quite a bit more interesting if it was granted. But I think we'd be wiped out in the crossfire pretty damn quick. ;p



            Originally posted by HYHYBT
            That you repeatedly refuse to answer very nearly proves you cannot. Vague talk about chaos and so forth is not helpful. You claim observable evidence shows x. You need, therefore, to have some idea of how the observable evidence would be different. You don't, therefore your "evidence" is nothing of the kind. Admit it and be done, or else cough up the difference.
            You're giving me a headache, frankly. I have answered this several times but you ignore it. You're ignoring reason and logic. You're brushing off the laundry list of scientific and philosophical problems with your position instead of addressing them. Then you're claiming *I'm* the one being illusive here.

            Do you know why you'll never find a satisfactory answer to your question? Because there is none. Do you know why? Because logically speaking there doesn't have to be. There does not have to be a specific difference in the evidence, only the fact that the evidence is different then it should be or that the evidence is absent from the place it should be. As I have already said repeatedly. You're basically running a God of Gaps argument here and the very nature of it is such that I can never give you an answer that will satisfy you. Because the goal posts can be repeatedly moved to increasingly insignificant scenarios until you find a gap and can go "Ah ha! See! You can't answer!".

            You're either working from faith or flawed reasoning or both and have built a little fort from which you can freely accept or reject any answer put to you. Thus "winning" the argument for as long as you want provided you just ignore all the other pesky ramifications of your position. None of which you have addressed. So we really don't have anything else to talk about here. We've reached the death spiral point of these Theist/Atheist discussions whereby no good can come from trying to discuss it any further as we will just start hissing at each other as I pointed out a few posts back.

            I'm standing on the Isle of Reason, you're standing at least on the beach of the Isle of Faith. There's no bridge between them. Hell, they don't even run a ferry.

            Its kind of ironic, really. I'm not even an Atheist but you've slowly shoved me over into that camp. This is the first time I've spend one of this threads entirely on that side of the debate. It was actually pretty interesting for a while until growly cat started getting poked with a stick. But ultimately it just turned into the same death spiral of a thread it always does.

            It just took quite a bit longer because at the very least we're both more reasonable than the usual camps and personally I'd prefer to keep it that way before we start tearing strips out of each other.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gravekeeper View Post
              It'd be quite a bit more interesting if it was granted. But I think we'd be wiped out in the crossfire pretty damn quick. ;p
              we almost are though, really. i mean humans have been around for what, a blip on the timeline? and we are almost close to eradicating ourselves off the planet. in the history of the earth our extinction will seem fairly quick :P teasin.
              All uses of You, You're, and etc are generic unless specified otherwise.

              Comment


              • Do you know why you'll never find a satisfactory answer to your question? Because there is none. Do you know why? Because logically speaking there doesn't have to be. There does not have to be a specific difference in the evidence, only the fact that the evidence is different then it should be or that the evidence is absent from the place it should be.
                First, thank you for this half-answer. Despite your repeated claims to the contrary, it's the first you've given. But it contains what seems to me a pretty huge leap in logic. HOW can you know the evidence says what you believe it to say without knowing how it would be different otherwise?

                That's not "God in the gaps." That's not "moving the goalposts." It's continuing to examine the same point of logic. It's trying to get the rest of the answer you've finally coughed up a beginning to, neither more nor less. I'm not out to go "ah ha!" at you, either. I'm not really looking to *win* an argument, even: just get straight answers to the logic behind yours. I'm trying to progress *through* a point rather than meandering around it. Nor does anything about my position on this one point require faith: you made that up from nothing, best I can see, and how and why you went to the trouble of doing so I cannot tell.

                (And if we ever do get through it, I'd still like to know why you imagine that building something with the intention of altering it later is inherently a flaw. But that might be asking too much; and anyway, one thing at a time.)
                "My in-laws are country people and at night you can hear their distinctive howl."

                Comment


                • Originally posted by HYHYBT View Post
                  First, thank you for this half-answer. Despite your repeated claims to the contrary, it's the first you've given. But it contains what seems to me a pretty huge leap in logic. HOW can you know the evidence says what you believe it to say without knowing how it would be different otherwise?
                  Its not a leap in logic, it IS logic. How the evidence is different doesn't matter. THAT the evidence is different matters. This isn't that hard and I have said it repeatedly now but you refuse to accept it or are willfully ignoring it. If you pop a water balloon and something other than water comes out, it doesn't matter what the something is, only that something other than water came out. It doesn't matter if its shaving cream or bees. What matters is that something else came out that does not follow the logical trail of evidence of what went in.


                  Nor does anything about my position on this one point require faith: you made that up from nothing, best I can see, and how and why you went to the trouble of doing so I cannot tell.
                  I put forth faith because you don't seem to be operating on actual logic.


                  (And if we ever do get through it, I'd still like to know why you imagine that building something with the intention of altering it later is inherently a flaw. But that might be asking too much; and anyway, one thing at a time.)
                  Maybe if you read anything I posted you would know. I've been trying very hard to be civil here. So fuck it, I will summarize this one last time and I'm done with this:

                  There's a laundry list of scientific and philosophical problems with your position. If you want to know what they are, feel free to actually read back over the thread. Seeing as you missed it or ignored it the first time around.

                  There are no scientific or philosophical problems at all with mine. None.

                  End of discussion.

                  Comment


                  • If you want to know what they are, feel free to actually read back over the thread. Seeing as you missed it or ignored it the first time around.
                    Done or not, AGAIN you lie. All anything you ever said on that amounts to is "because that's the way it is." Which is no more of an answer now than it is when a parent says "because I said so" to a small child (which they also shouldn't do if there's any way around it, but to treat adults that way is beyond the pale.)

                    It's hardly decent of you to lie about not only what you've said, but to at least misrepresent what I've said as well, and then announce "end of discussion."

                    ts not a leap in logic, it IS logic. How the evidence is different doesn't matter. THAT the evidence is different matters. This isn't that hard and I have said it repeatedly now but you refuse to accept it or are willfully ignoring it. If you pop a water balloon and something other than water comes out, it doesn't matter what the something is, only that something other than water came out. It doesn't matter if its shaving cream or bees. What matters is that something else came out that does not follow the logical trail of evidence of what went in.
                    I am ignoring nothing, willfully or otherwise, and YOU KNOW THAT TO BE THE CASE. To try to make some sense of your example, you know it was water in the balloon because water comes out. You do, in fact, know how it would be different were it not water. You know that, if it had been filled with shaving cream, shaving cream would have come out, etc. None of that even *makes sense* as relates to what I was asking. Run off if you like; obviously this is getting nowhere anyway. But at least have the decency not to pretend you've addressed the questions I've asked in a meaningful sense; all you've done is dismiss them, or else repeat in other words the same claim as if it could fill in as a reason for itself.
                    "My in-laws are country people and at night you can hear their distinctive howl."

                    Comment


                    • Accusing someone of lying is a pretty big and nasty step and one I don't like to see on here. I suggest you moderate your actions before I do. You've got to be able to back your claims up, not sling accusations around.

                      Rapscallion
                      Proud to be a W.A.N.K.E.R. - Womanless And No Kids - Exciting Rubbing!
                      Reclaiming words is fun!

                      Comment


                      • Fair enough. It's certainly less polite than what I prefer anyway.

                        That does lead to a different question, though: what would you call it if someone claimed you were saying and doing things which you plainly were not, and which you'd pointed out that you were not, and also claimed to have done things which he had not?

                        Speaking completely generally, and mainly for future reference.
                        "My in-laws are country people and at night you can hear their distinctive howl."

                        Comment


                        • I'd call that something you could try and prove. Not something you could attempt to insult someone over.

                          Rapscallion
                          Proud to be a W.A.N.K.E.R. - Womanless And No Kids - Exciting Rubbing!
                          Reclaiming words is fun!

                          Comment


                          • How about replacing the name-calling with, "I believe you are mistaken", or "You are still misunderstanding what I am trying to say"?

                            A certain level of civility is required to keep debate going in a constructive fashion. Civility requires that you call someone "mistaken" instead of a liar. It doesn't matter if you believe it. This is how polite society works.

                            I'm sure that everyone here has, at one point, wanted to call someone a raging idiot. I'm sure they believed it to be objectively true, and the only possible rebuttal to this person's argument is to tell them so. But most people here don't ever stoop to that level. They either say something like, "I believe you have been misinformed", or they step out of the thread.

                            These anonymous heroes are why we have such an awesome board here. Be one of them. Adjust your tone, or step away from the debate.

                            Comment


                            • I've been watching this little back and forth for pages. Was there ever a citation for the "if God existed, we'd be able to tell" position?

                              ^-.-^
                              Faith is about what you do. It's about aspiring to be better and nobler and kinder than you are. It's about making sacrifices for the good of others. - Dresden

                              Comment


                              • If you can't prove the god interfered and created the result, and the god in question only answers those prayers that takes its preferences no matter how dire the situation, and if the god in question doesn't actually make any sort of perceptible impact, then why is it your god?

                                Rapscallion
                                Proud to be a W.A.N.K.E.R. - Womanless And No Kids - Exciting Rubbing!
                                Reclaiming words is fun!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X