User Tag List

First 67891018 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 199

  1. #71
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    961

    Default

    Behold! The Rebuttal of Great and Terrible Rebutting! (sorta)

    Would I be wrong in assuming that most of you consider Fred Phelps to be a bad Christian, to give Christians a bad name, to have misinterpreted the bible and to be an annoying asshat?

    If so, how do you make that judgment? I have gotten the impression from this thread that everyone is entitled to their own interpretation of scripture, to find God in their own way and to basically discover their own truth.

    Well, Fred seems to have found his truth and who are you to judge him for it?

    Also, to the Christians: What about other religions? Are they just different ways of worshiping the same god? Which ones would you say are total rubbish?

    Thricely, how are your beliefs distinguishable from that which is imaginary?

  2. #72
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,128

    Default

    I'd kick Fred Phelps' ass if I ever met him!

    I actually think that where people go with what they beleive is their decision, and I think there's nothing wrong with me detesting Mr. Phelps since I beleive that fairness and niceness are important and he completely disregards those norms. I also think that other religions have a good point! Almost every single religion in the world has a tenent that is quite similar to the golden rule, and I've always thought that if a person is good, no matter what they call God, or if they even call what higher power that they beleive in anything at all, they'll not be dumped back on earth after they die! I was raised by a christian and an agnostic/buddhist, and then spent a summer living in a convent with nuns, so don't take my opinion to be applicable to everyone!
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  3. #73
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sassafrassquatch View Post
    Now that I've had a few days to cool down I'm going to work on a Rebuttal of Great and Terrible Rebutting. In the mean time here's something for the faithful to chew on, a story by Uncle Carl...
    Heh according to that story it seems like there is something wrong with Uncle Carl's senses. He can't see what nearly everyone else can see. If a large majority can sense something that a small minority cannot, then the simpler explanation is that the faulty senses belong to the minority. It is not reasonable to assume that the minority sees things correctly and the majority is experiencing a kind of mass delusion.

    For example when most people view a green object on a red background then they see two distinct colors. A minority of people do not see a distinction between the two colors. The ones in the minority are referred to as colorblind, implying the faulty perception is with them and not the other way around.

    This is not to imply that athiests are not able to perceive God. Rather I believe that most athiests choose not to try to perceive God. God is not as easy to perceive as simply looking at an object in front of your face. You have to actively look for God in order to perceive "Him". (i.e., "seek and you will find", and all that).

    Which brings up another point about Uncle Carl's analogy that doesn't really reflect reality. His analogy suggests there is nothing burnt, no footprints, etc... to suggest there is an invisible dragon. A more accurate analogy would be if things actually did heat up in the garage, but the person couldn't prove that it was caused by a dragon. In reality there is a lot of evidence that suggests something remarkable is happening pertaining to religion/spirituality. Theists explain these things by saying they are caused by God. The explanation cannot be proved, but there is plenty of data suggesting something is happening that no reasonable athiest can deny.

    Would I be wrong in assuming that most of you consider Fred Phelps to be a bad Christian, to give Christians a bad name, to have misinterpreted the bible and to be an annoying asshat?
    I agree he's an asshat. I also am not 100% convinced that he is sincere. However I respect that he should be able to believe whatever he likes.
    If so, how do you make that judgment? I have gotten the impression from this thread that everyone is entitled to their own interpretation of scripture, to find God in their own way and to basically discover their own truth.
    I disagree with his interpretation, but I respect his freedom to believe what he likes. I don't hold that all beliefs are equally true, but I do hold that the freedom to pursue one's own religion is vitally important. The other side of the coin is that important social advances are often made by people with deep religious convictions (Dr. Martin Luther King for example.) Freedom of religion is similar to freedom of speech in that some people are going to misuse it, but you have to give it to everyone because there is no easy way to establish the crap from the stuff that society really needs. You have to give the freedom to everyone equally and know that some people are going to use the freedom wisely and others are going to misuse it.

    (I'll have to stop my post here. If I have time later I may come back to answer your other questions.)
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  4. #74
    RDF
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    If a large majority can sense something that a small minority cannot, then the simpler explanation is that the faulty senses belong to the minority.
    I think it's important to remember that Christians are not in the majority in the world. Even if you take Christians, Muslims, and Jews together as worshiping one god, I think the figures show that they are still in the minority worldwide. (Blame it on China and India.) So by your own argument, Christians are deluded.

    I'm an atheist myself. I believe in God as much as I believe in the tooth fairy. Both might in fact exist, but I strongly doubt it.

    Without anything solid to back it up, mere belief proves nothing. There are plenty of strange beliefs around the world (ghosts, angels, fairies, spirits of ancestors, the evil eye, etc). I'm sure there are villages in backwoods Ireland that still believe in leprechauns. It doesn't make leprechauns come alive in those places. All it proves is that humans have a tendency to believe in intangibles. (And it's worth reading up on psychology to learn about the roots of that tendency.)

    I have nothing against believers. My wife is a Christian and a believer, and I don't see it as a problem. We just don't talk about it. We made a promise not to try to proselytize each other, so it's not an issue for us.

  5. #75
    RDF
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FineLine View Post
    I think it's important to remember that Christians are not in the majority in the world. Even if you take Christians, Muslims, and Jews together as worshiping one god, I think the figures show that they are still in the minority worldwide. (Blame it on China and India.) So by your own argument, Christians are deluded.
    Oops. I take it back. Christians and Muslims together make up 53 percent of the world's population: Major religious groups - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Still, I don't think the majority is large enough that one can conclude that the Abrahamic God automatically has to exist simply because 53 percent of the world's population believes in him.

  6. #76
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    Heh according to that story it seems like there is something wrong with Uncle Carl's senses. He can't see what nearly everyone else can see. If a large majority can sense something that a small minority cannot, then the simpler explanation is that the faulty senses belong to the minority. It is not reasonable to assume that the minority sees things correctly and the majority is experiencing a kind of mass delusion.
    Facts are not determined by consensus, they are determined by evidence. Theists have yet to show any.

    For example when most people view a green object on a red background then they see two distinct colors. A minority of people do not see a distinction between the two colors. The ones in the minority are referred to as colorblind, implying the faulty perception is with them and not the other way around.
    So atheists are god-blind?

    This is not to imply that atheists are not able to perceive God.
    Now atheists are not god-blind? Make up your mind.

    Rather I believe that most atheists choose not to try to perceive God.
    Fail.

    Perceive which god? There are a lot of gods to choose from. How do I know which one is real? Are they all real? Is it just one god pretending to be a bunch of gods? Is it the hands off god who poofed the universe into existence then left and doesn’t even know we’re here? Is he a control freak who will burn me in hell for eternity for wearing mixed fibers?

    This is why Christianity and religion in general is rubbish. Theists can’t seem to find their asses with both hands when it comes to the question of what does God want from us?

    Speaking of God’s will...

    Quote Originally Posted by JAVO
    How could he have recorded it infallibly? Any media would eventually become unreadable or deprecated. Also, keep in perspective the mindset and culture at the time. It was different than ours is now.
    He’s the fucking Lord God ALMIGHTY isn’t he? He could poof a temple into existence, write his will in plates of gold in every language humans ever have or will speak then place his divine protection over the whole kit so it suffers nary a scratch for all eternity.

    Better yet, why doesn’t he come down here in person and talk to us? Can he do that? Why does he have to make us jump through hoops?

    God is not as easy to perceive as simply looking at an object in front of your face. You have to actively look for God in order to perceive "Him". (i.e., "seek and you will find", and all that).
    Why does he have to be so fucking difficult? Why the mind games? If the little brat really cares what I think of him he can get his punk ass down here and talk to me like an adult. (You all can keep any smartass comments about my choice of language to yourselves. It makes me feel better.)

    Which brings up another point about Uncle Carl's analogy that doesn't really reflect reality. His analogy suggests there is nothing burnt, no footprints, etc... to suggest there is an invisible dragon. A more accurate analogy would be if things actually did heat up in the garage, but the person couldn't prove that it was caused by a dragon. In reality there is a lot of evidence that suggests something remarkable is happening pertaining to religion/spirituality. Theists explain these things by saying they are caused by God. The explanation cannot be proved, but there is plenty of data suggesting something is happening that no reasonable atheists can deny.
    Such as? Did he finally heal an amputee?

    I agree he's an asshat. I also am not 100% convinced that he is sincere. However I respect that he should be able to believe whatever he likes.

    I disagree with his interpretation, but I respect his freedom to believe what he likes. I don't hold that all beliefs are equally true, but I do hold that the freedom to pursue one's own religion is vitally important. The other side of the coin is that important social advances are often made by people with deep religious convictions (Dr. Martin Luther King for example.) Freedom of religion is similar to freedom of speech in that some people are going to misuse it, but you have to give it to everyone because there is no easy way to establish the crap from the stuff that society really needs. You have to give the freedom to everyone equally and know that some people are going to use the freedom wisely and others are going to misuse it.

    (I'll have to stop my post here. If I have time later I may come back to answer your other questions.)
    You seem to be convinced that God values peace and love over strict adherence to his laws. How do you know God isn’t sadistic? *waggles eyebrows suggestively*

  7. #77
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FineLine View Post
    I think it's important to remember that Christians are not in the majority in the world. Even if you take Christians, Muslims, and Jews together as worshiping one god, I think the figures show that they are still in the minority worldwide. (Blame it on China and India.) So by your own argument, Christians are deluded.
    I believe that you've misinterpreted my post. The argument is not Christianity vs. athiesm, but theism vs. athiesm. Where in post 73 do I use the words Christian, Christianity, or Jesus? Rather I am responding to the points brought up by Carl Sagan in post 70. He is arguing atheism vs. theism. He seems to be arguing that theists have a problem with their perception. But since athiests are in such a vast minority compared to theists, it is much easier to argue that athiests have a problem with their perception.

    I am not saying that there are no arguments in favor of athiesm. Rather I am saying these specific arguments presented by Carl Sagan are naive and hold no water. They actually argue more for theism than athiesm. In arguing in favor of athiesm Carl Sagan is doing a horrible job.

    Quote Originally Posted by sassafrassquatch
    Facts are not determined by consensus, they are determined by evidence. Theists have yet to show any.
    Facts are determined by consensus. In order for something to be considered a fact the majority must consider it a fact. A person is considered colorblind if they do not perceive what the vast majority does. Colorblindness is a fact. We can objectively perform a test to determine whether or not any given person is colorblind.

    Perceive which god? There are a lot of gods to choose from. How do I know which one is real? Are they all real? Is it just one god pretending to be a bunch of gods? Is it the hands off god who poofed the universe into existence then left and doesn’t even know we’re here? Is he a control freak who will burn me in hell for eternity for wearing mixed fibers?

    This is why Christianity and religion in general is rubbish. Theists can’t seem to find their asses with both hands when it comes to the question of what does God want from us?
    From history we know that the presence of a single monolithic religion leads to tyranny and oppression. The alternative to that is many different kinds of faiths. At this point we may simply have to agree that our opinions differ. I would rather have the freedom to seek out and choose my faith. I don't want everything spoon fed to me. Perhaps this is frustrating for you though. Would you prefer a tyrannical religious organization that could uniformly provide all of the answers or would you prefer today's alternative of a plethora of religions?

    He’s the fucking Lord God ALMIGHTY isn’t he? He could poof a temple into existence, write his will in plates of gold in every language humans ever have or will speak then place his divine protection over the whole kit so it suffers nary a scratch for all eternity.

    Better yet, why doesn’t he come down here in person and talk to us? Can he do that? Why does he have to make us jump through hoops?

    Why does he have to be so fucking difficult? Why the mind games? If the little brat really cares what I think of him he can get his punk ass down here and talk to me like an adult. (You all can keep any smartass comments about my choice of language to yourselves. It makes me feel better.)
    Perhaps the point of spirituality/religion is not to have all of the answers? If you want answers you could look at the places where the major world religions agree. There are actually quite a few places of agreement. Beyond that you have the choice to believe what you like.

    You seem to be convinced that God values peace and love over strict adherence to his laws. How do you know God isn’t sadistic? *waggles eyebrows suggestively*
    Here I am referring more toward the nature of religion rather than the nature of God. The issues are related, but they are not the same. We might disagree upon the nature of God, but we can come up with objective measures for what a healthy religion looks like.

    Such as? Did he finally heal an amputee?
    There are actually many reasons that people believe in some sort of divine being. All of these reasons are readily observable by any rational person. The problem is that none of these phenomena can be conclusively attributed to a divine being. Theists and athiests do not disagree on most of the phenomena. They simply disagree on the interpretation.

    Would you like examples? Well lets start with the simple ones. One thing is that the majority of natural life is enjoyable. Food is delicious. Sex is pleasurable. Nature is beautiful. Surveys suggest that the greatest source of happiness comes from close relationships with family and friends. In other words life in general is enjoyable in it's default state. Do these things prove that God exists? Of course not, because there is no definite proof that God exists. On the other hand these are all valid reasons why God might exist.

    There are many other reasons why people believe in some type of deity. Some state the existence of life. It's very hard to say how life got started without resorting to some sort of divine influence. That's not to say that there isn't another reasonable explanation. It simply hasn't been given. For that matter their used to be a good argument against the existence of God which assumed that the universe is static. Since that time observation of bodies in space suggests that the universe is dynamic and has a central point of origin, i.e. the Big Bang. The theory that the universe has an origin doesn't prove God's existence, but it does lend weight to that explanation (and also takes away several arguments that athiests used to use).

    For some people witnessing a child being born can be enough to convince them of God's existence. It can't be objectively argued that this is a miracle, but some believe it is. Often when a person converts to a religion there is a measurable change in behavior. This might not be a miracle, but that is what some believe.

    I am simply scratching the surface for reasons why one might believe in a divine being. If I were to state all of the reasons I could think of this post would be about 100 times longer, and I still would miss a lot of explanations that others could come up with.

    My point though is that there are a lot of undeniable facts that people look at to justify their belief in a diety. The questionable part is not whether or not these things occur. The questionable part is whether they can be attributed to God. That is why Carl Sagan's analogy is an exceptionally poor one. He holds that theists have no observable reason why they believe in a diety. This is not true in the slightest. His analogy would be more accurate if he said that there was intense heat in the garage, but he doesn't think that a dragon's fire causes it. Because there are observable reasons why people believe in a divine being, but the disagreement about what causes these phenomena is where the disagreement is.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  8. #78
    RDF
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    I believe that you've misinterpreted my post. The argument is not Christianity vs. athiesm, but theism vs. athiesm. Where in post 73 do I use the words Christian, Christianity, or Jesus?
    Well, you did say "God," which usually presumes monotheism and the Abrahamic God (which is why I lumped Christianity, Islam, and Judaism together). From post 73:

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    This is not to imply that athiests are not able to perceive God. Rather I believe that most athiests choose not to try to perceive God. God is not as easy to perceive as simply looking at an object in front of your face. You have to actively look for God in order to perceive "Him". (i.e., "seek and you will find", and all that).
    IOW, Carl Sagan argued against theism in general, but you didn't defend theism. You only defended "God."

    It would be impossible to defend all of theism in that argument. You can't argue that all the believers of all the different religions are seeing something genuine and real in that same garage if they all enter the garage together and claim to see very different things: one of them is seeing God, one of them is seeing leprechauns, one of them is seeing the thousand Hindu gods, one of them is seeing his departed great-grandfather, etc. They all have to see the same thing, or they're not seeing something that is really and honestly there.

    You said that believers can see something real in there, and the atheist is just missing it because he's god-blind. So which would the atheist see if he opened his eyes properly: The departed great grandfather? The thousand Hindu gods? The Abrahamic God?

    It sounds like you defended the Abrahamic God and not theism in general. If you're really serious that there's something real in there and not just a shadow in the corner that anyone can interpret any way they want, then I don't see how theism as a whole can be defended in that argument. (Barring a whole lot of sophistry, of course.)

    Just my opinion, of course. Oh well, I'll drop out.

    I'm usually not into pushing my views on others. I mainly just wanted to point out that this argument isn't only about the Christian God vs. atheism, with atheists playing the role of a tiny minority of grumpy oddballs who somehow stubbornly refuse to see the truth right in front of their face. Instead, as a believer you have to account for *all* the other weird religions and superstitions out there in the world too--it's an important point that atheism denies them *all* (as long as they can't come up with hard proof, anyway), and from our point of view Christianity is one more superstition that's no better or worse than the rest. So are *all* religions and superstitions true? Or will you have to take the even more difficult stance that somehow everyone in the world is fabricating their religion except for you and your particular co-believers in your particular faith. That's a difficult argument to make because if you assume that everyone else in the world is fabricating their religion, then why can't the same be assumed of you, given that you have no more proof than them.

    It's the garage again: Are you defending just your "God" or are you defending all of theism? Carl Sagan was very clear about not believing any of the manifestations of theism. But it sounds like you didn't make your own stance nearly as clear: Is your "God" the only one that's real, or are all the crazy gods and beliefs throughout the world equally true?

  9. #79
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    I believe that you've misinterpreted my post. The argument is not Christianity vs. athiesm, but theism vs. athiesm. Where in post 73 do I use the words Christian, Christianity, or Jesus? Rather I am responding to the points brought up by Carl Sagan in post 70. He is arguing atheism vs. theism. He seems to be arguing that theists have a problem with their perception. But since athiests are in such a vast minority compared to theists, it is much easier to argue that athiests have a problem with their perception.

    I am not saying that there are no arguments in favor of athiesm. Rather I am saying these specific arguments presented by Carl Sagan are naive and hold no water. They actually argue more for theism than athiesm. In arguing in favor of athiesm Carl Sagan is doing a horrible job.



    Facts are determined by consensus. In order for something to be considered a fact the majority must consider it a fact. A person is considered colorblind if they do not perceive what the vast majority does. Colorblindness is a fact. We can objectively perform a test to determine whether or not any given person is colorblind.
    First you say it’s the majority’s word against the minority’s, then you say the majority can prove the minority is colorblind with a test and provide evidence. You keep contradicting yourself. Where is the test for god-blindness?

    From history we know that the presence of a single monolithic religion leads to tyranny and oppression. The alternative to that is many different kinds of faiths. At this point we may simply have to agree that our opinions differ. I would rather have the freedom to seek out and choose my faith. I don't want everything spoon fed to me. Perhaps this is frustrating for you though. Would you prefer a tyrannical religious organization that could uniformly provide all of the answers or would you prefer today's alternative of a plethora of religions?
    Of course a monolithic religion is going to be tyrannical and oppressive. It’s a bunch of guys in funny hats forcing everyone to submit to a religion they pulled out of their asses. Which is not even remotely what I was talking about. I said for God to come down and reveal his will to humanity in person. No one could argue with that.

    Also, I would prefer no religions, they’re all myths. I’d like everyone to live with their eyes open rather than stick their heads in the sand.

    Perhaps the point of spirituality/religion is not to have all of the answers? If you want answers you could look at the places where the major world religions agree. There are actually quite a few places of agreement. Beyond that you have the choice to believe what you like.
    So they agree. How do I know they’re right? I still don’t understand why the god-thing can’t just come right out and tell us what’s up.

    Here I am referring more toward the nature of religion rather than the nature of God. The issues are related, but they are not the same. We might disagree upon the nature of God, but we can come up with objective measures for what a healthy religion looks like.



    There are actually many reasons that people believe in some sort of divine being. All of these reasons are readily observable by any rational person. The problem is that none of these phenomena can be conclusively attributed to a divine being. Theists and athiests do not disagree on most of the phenomena. They simply disagree on the interpretation.

    Would you like examples? Well lets start with the simple ones. One thing is that the majority of natural life is enjoyable. Food is delicious. Sex is pleasurable. Nature is beautiful. Surveys suggest that the greatest source of happiness comes from close relationships with family and friends. In other words life in general is enjoyable in it's default state. Do these things prove that God exists? Of course not, because there is no definite proof that God exists. On the other hand these are all valid reasons why God might exist.
    People have warm fuzzy feelings, therefore God exists? Rubbish. If good feelings count towards God’s existence then all human suffering neutralizes them and we end up back and zero.

    There are many other reasons why people believe in some type of deity. Some state the existence of life. It's very hard to say how life got started without resorting to some sort of divine influence.
    “Magic man done it” is never a valid explanation for anything. Why does the sun move? Apollo must be pulling it across the sky in his chariot. Not quite.

    That's not to say that there isn't another reasonable explanation. It simply hasn't been given. For that matter their used to be a good argument against the existence of God which assumed that the universe is static. Since that time observation of bodies in space suggests that the universe is dynamic and has a central point of origin, i.e. the Big Bang. The theory that the universe has an origin doesn't prove God's existence, but it does lend weight to that explanation (and also takes away several arguments that athiests used to use).
    God really is quite useful for filling those gaps, isn’t he?

    For some people witnessing a child being born can be enough to convince them of God's existence. It can't be objectively argued that this is a miracle, but some believe it is. Often when a person converts to a religion there is a measurable change in behavior. This might not be a miracle, but that is what some believe.

    I am simply scratching the surface for reasons why one might believe in a divine being. If I were to state all of the reasons I could think of this post would be about 100 times longer, and I still would miss a lot of explanations that others could come up with.

    My point though is that there are a lot of undeniable facts that people look at to justify their belief in a diety. The questionable part is not whether or not these things occur. The questionable part is whether they can be attributed to God. That is why Carl Sagan's analogy is an exceptionally poor one. He holds that theists have no observable reason why they believe in a diety. This is not true in the slightest. His analogy would be more accurate if he said that there was intense heat in the garage, but he doesn't think that a dragon's fire causes it. Because there are observable reasons why people believe in a divine being, but the disagreement about what causes these phenomena is where the disagreement is.
    More like “Thinking about dragons makes me feel good, therefore the IGD exists” or “I saw a pretty sunset, therefore the IGD exists.”

  10. #80
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FineLine View Post
    Well, you did say "God," which usually presumes monotheism and the Abrahamic God (which is why I lumped Christianity, Islam, and Judaism together). From post 73:
    Fair enough. I meant to be referring to a divine being in general and not just the Abrahamic God. I should have been more rigorous in my terminology. However I was referring to the Carl Sagan analogy which is discussing athiesm vs. theism.

    IOW, Carl Sagan argued against theism in general, but you didn't defend theism. You only defended "God."

    It would be impossible to defend all of theism in that argument. You can't argue that all the believers of all the different religions are seeing something genuine and real in that same garage if they all enter the garage together and claim to see very different things: one of them is seeing God, one of them is seeing leprechauns, one of them is seeing the thousand Hindu gods, one of them is seeing his departed great-grandfather, etc. They all have to see the same thing, or they're not seeing something that is really and honestly there.
    Actually this is what Carl Sagan argues. (Or more accurately they see the same thing but in their own garage instead of one fixed garage.) This is another reason why the analogy is not a good one. My point was never to bad mouth athiesm, but to show how poor the Carl Sagan analogy is. According to his argument athiests refuse to believe what the vast majority believes and all theists are unified in their beliefs. You can say that this is an invalid argument and you are right. You are basically agreeing with me, when I say that Carl Sagan's analogy sucks.

    You said that believers can see something real in there, and the atheist is just missing it because he's god-blind. So which would the atheist see if he opened his eyes properly: The departed great grandfather? The thousand Hindu gods? The Abrahamic God?

    It sounds like you defended the Abrahamic God and not theism in general. If you're really serious that there's something real in there and not just a shadow in the corner that anyone can interpret any way they want, then I don't see how theism as a whole can be defended in that argument. (Barring a whole lot of sophistry, of course.)
    I think you are putting much more into my comments than was ever intended. All of my comments are intended to be viewed within the context of the Carl Sagan analogy. Why should I be discussing "The departed great grandfather? The thousand Hindu gods? The Abrahamic God," when the analogy is always referring to a dragon.

    Just my opinion, of course. Oh well, I'll drop out.

    I'm usually not into pushing my views on others. I mainly just wanted to point out that this argument isn't only about the Christian God vs. atheism, with atheists playing the role of a tiny minority of grumpy oddballs who somehow stubbornly refuse to see the truth right in front of their face. Instead, as a believer you have to account for *all* the other weird religions and superstitions out there in the world too--it's an important point that atheism denies them *all* (as long as they can't come up with hard proof, anyway), and from our point of view Christianity is one more superstition that's no better or worse than the rest. So are *all* religions and superstitions true? Or will you have to take the even more difficult stance that somehow everyone in the world is fabricating their religion except for you and your particular co-believers in your particular faith. That's a difficult argument to make because if you assume that everyone else in the world is fabricating their religion, then why can't the same be assumed of you, given that you have no more proof than them.

    It's the garage again: Are you defending just your "God" or are you defending all of theism? Carl Sagan was very clear about not believing any of the manifestations of theism. But it sounds like you didn't make your own stance nearly as clear: Is your "God" the only one that's real, or are all the crazy gods and beliefs throughout the world equally true?
    I don't think I can answer this because you've changed the analogy to the point that it no longer has coherant meaning, and it wasn't even my analogy to begin with. The Carl Sagan analogy does put theism vs. athiesm "with atheists playing the role of a tiny minority of grumpy oddballs who somehow stubbornly refuse to see the truth right in front of their face."

    Quote Originally Posted by sassafrassquatch
    First you say it’s the majority’s word against the minority’s, then you say the majority can prove the minority is colorblind with a test and provide evidence. You keep contradicting yourself. Where is the test for god-blindness?
    This paragraph does not make any sense. Could you point out the contradiction more clearly? Also where did I mention a test for god-blindness?

    Of course a monolithic religion is going to be tyrannical and oppressive. It’s a bunch of guys in funny hats forcing everyone to submit to a religion they pulled out of their asses. Which is not even remotely what I was talking about. I said for God to come down and reveal his will to humanity in person. No one could argue with that.

    Also, I would prefer no religions, they’re all myths. I’d like everyone to live with their eyes open rather than stick their heads in the sand.
    Well some religions do hold that God came down and revealed his will to humanity in person. That still does not create uniformity, nor should it. Also the tried having no religion in the Eastern European countries during the Cold War and from what I understand most Eastern Europeans are glad that era is over as well.

    So they agree. How do I know they’re right? I still don’t understand why the god-thing can’t just come right out and tell us what’s up.

    People have warm fuzzy feelings, therefore God exists? Rubbish. If good feelings count towards God’s existence then all human suffering neutralizes them and we end up back and zero.

    God really is quite useful for filling those gaps, isn’t he?

    More like “Thinking about dragons makes me feel good, therefore the IGD exists” or “I saw a pretty sunset, therefore the IGD exists.”
    Heh, you are affirming what I've already said. The evidence is there, but the interpretation is widely disagreed upon.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

Similar Threads

  1. [MBTItm] Is it just me or...
    By yenom in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 03-19-2009, 10:13 PM
  2. [ENTJ] ENTJ greatest fears??? or is it just me???
    By Riva in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 02-20-2009, 11:00 AM
  3. [INFP] Do INFPs often question their type? Or is it just me?
    By r0wo1 in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 12-29-2008, 11:59 AM
  4. Is it just me, or are ENFP's the largest extroverted group here?
    By Angry Ayrab in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-05-2008, 08:52 PM
  5. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-24-2007, 07:35 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO