Quote from: SigmundYou realise, referring to God and JC this way in and of itself could be construed as intolerant, disrespectful, and condescending? Not that it bothers me any, I don't believe in the Sky Fairy or have any need for the "salvation" his errant hippy son offers either... just thought I'd point it out

I meant I would respect your right to worship and believe in whatever you like as long as it falls within the social restrictions of living in your community (i.e. human sacrifice is illegal in most countries). I would fight and die for your right, as well as mine, to worship (or not worship) as you choose.

That said, I reserve the right to free speech and making fun of your ridiculous beliefs. You want to be involved in a cult that practices ritual cannibalism, worships a Sky Fairy and lives their lives waiting for death that is fine. As long as you do not force me or others to worship as you do we have no problem.

And as an aside, this is probably the most I have talked about it since college. When I was younger I thought and talked about it a lot. Now, I am an old man and don't have the energy. I hope I do not come off sounding upset, I really am not. I just like saying Sky Fairy.

Bill

Quote from: James McMurrayHey Akrasia, did you see my post? It looks like it went up as you were ytping a reply elsewhere.

Rest assured, James.

You have not escaped My attention.  :emot-sigh:

Quote from: HinterWeltIf he does, in the Judeo-Christian sense, you are damned to Hell. End of story.
…
If he does not (and you are an atheist) you get the smug satisfaction of dying right and ending your existence.
Bill  

Um, what a joke.
 the Catholic Church does not believe in ‘Hell’ anymore!

What if Zeus still exists?

Or Odin?

You’ve (more or less) just resated ‘Pascal’s Wager’.

And that would be insanely boring to get into now!

Quote from: HinterWeltThank you and have a good day,
Bill  

Quote from: HinterWeltIf he does, in the Judeo-Christian sense, you are damned to Hell. End of story.
…
If he does not (and you are an atheist) you get the smug satisfaction of dying right and ending your existence.
Bill  

Umm, what a joke.

Seriously, if pathetic ‘fear’ iis the best that God can to do, I laugh in his face!

The Catholic Church does not even believe in ‘Hell’ anymore!

What if Zeus still exists?

Or Odin?

You’ve (more or less) just retsated ‘Pascal’s Wager’.

Strangley, that did not convince too many lads back the day.

And those people were fucking dandies..

That would be insanely boring to get into now!

Quote from: HinterWeltThank you and have a good day,
Bill  

Given that I might be murdered within the next 30 seconds?

Well, no.

Quote from: AkrasiaYeah, yeah ...:rolleyes:

e. People claim: "God is full of love, and the death of babies with spinalcord disorders, innocents suffering due to cancer, and animals dying due to disease over countless eons, is just part of his big-ass loving plan, but we just cannot comprehend it now", but that's bullshit.    There is no God.  It's just a myth.

"I don't like this answer" does not equate to "that's bullshit".

QuoteConfusion reigns?   What is right?

Well, the atheist claims (e), the traditional theist (a.), and various heretics b-d.  

First, you need to change "the traditional theist" to "most traditional judeo-christian theists".
Second, a. and e. are equally logically possible. "god exists but is working in ways we don't understand" is logically speaking just as provable as "god doesn't exist"; which is to say, neither of them are provable at all.  Both of them depend on having faith.

QuoteBased on empirical evidence, (e.) looks pretty good.  But the atheist isn't fanatical about it!

You certainly seem to be.

RPGPundit

Quote from: James McMurrayLOL! Yes, you use English perfectly well, except that that point where you ignore the dictionary definition of the word "faith" in favor of your chosen definition which doesn't endanger your supposed faithlessness.

Umm ...  no

Quote from: James McMurrayL
Either

a) You don't accept the problem of evil as proof that a certain type of God does not exist,

b) You have proof that from a divine perspective suffering is the greatest possible evil and must be gotten rid of in any and all instances of suffering, or

c) You don't have proof, but you believe in the problem of evil anyway. And, since belief without proof = faith, you have faith.

Um, no.

(Unnecessary insults removed.)

Quote from: James McMurrayL
Inductive, deductive, abductive, none of it matters without a proven foundation. Either you've got proof, you've got uncertainty, or you've got faith. That is, if you're speaking the English language.

No...

You have 60 percent certainty, etc.

Probabilities, nothing more.

Quote from: James McMurray: You claimed that ad hominem attacks were proof that your stance is weak. You made ad hominem attacks. By your own admission then, your stance is weak. Or is that logic not good enough for you? LOL...

No.
Logic is fine.

Quote from: James McMurrayAs for water = H2O requiring faith, it actually does....

Let's see it!

Quote from: James McMurray...
As for water = H2O requiring faith, it actually does....

Um, yeah.

Quote from: HinterWeltLet me rephrase my counter argument. What does it matter if God exists?

If he does, in the Judeo-Christian sense, you are damned to Hell. End of story.

If he does not (and you are an atheist) you get the smug satisfaction of dying right and ending your existence.

Corollary to you being correct: You may attempt to convert those of the faith to your beliefs. To what purpose? If you are not a religion, you are taking from them and providing nothing in return. They had hope of an eternal afterlife and now, assuming you convince them, you give them the grim reality of a life of suffering ending in non-existence.

Well, if you can find logical or theological faults with judeo-christianity, and you certainly can, then there is certainly a point to getting people to stop mortgaging their present (and fucking up the entire world, not to mention life for the rest of us in it) in exchange for a promise of paradise that is based on a lie.
Arguing a dogmatic atheism might not be the way to do it, though...

QuoteNow, you could argue that for the sake of Truth you have done them a service by opening their eyes to the "real" world as Akrasia sees it but it seems a grim world. Filled with suffering and no hope of getting out of it alive.

There are ways around suffering; ultimately one big part of them is to start out by accepting that "no one here gets out alive".

RPGPundit

Quote from: AkrasiaThat also seems to be true of string theory, but that shouldn't prevent us from using all the tools of reason at our disposal in evaluating the theory under consideration.

String theory has some hope of eventually producing testable predictions. It hasn't so far, but if developed thoroughly enough, could do so.

Theology, it ain't so.

Of course, until string theory does in fact produce testable predictions, it remains utterly irrelevant to the world, and is, as I said of theology, merely a matter of discussion.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. There are a lot of things we talk about which have no practical meaning whatsoever, for example celebrity gossip. I think theological discussions are far more worthy than celebrity gossip, even if both are equally futile in themselves. The theology, after all, at least tells us something about the person who's speaking, and can help them achieve a deeper understanding of their own assumptions about the universe. So theology has some use not because it helps us to understand God, but ourselves.

Quote from: RPGPundit"I don't like this answer" does not equate to "that's bullshit".

Given that I've already explained this seven fucking times ... well, whatever.  :rolleyes:

I have no problem with 'unorthodox' views.

Yeah, the magic Christmas God exists.  Happy?  :pundit:

Quote from: RPGPunditSecond, a. and e. are equally logically possible.

Um, well, no, they're not.

Jesus Christ, it just occured to me that I'm dealing with people who don't know fucking induction from abduction.   :rolleyes:

Good thing, mate, you bailed out of academia when you did.  :pundit:

Quote from: RPGPundit...
"god exists but is working in ways we don't understand" is logically speaking just as provable as "god doesn't exist"; which is to say, neither of them are provable at all.  Both of them depend on having faith....

Um, no.

Quote from: JimBobOzString theory has some hope of eventually producing testable predictions.

It hasn't so far, but if developed thoroughly enough, could do so.

False.  

Please, I beg you, explain to me what these 'experiments' would involve.  

Go on, do it.

Quote from: AkrasiaUm, no.

This, as an answer, only seems to highlight your inability to actually defend your position.  And it certainly doesn't stop it from being so.  How does "god exists but works in ways that are beyond human comprehension" end up relying on faith any more than "god doesn't exist because I don't like the idea lalalala I can't hear you"?

I mean fuck, 14 pages of this crap and you still haven't even been able to provide a decent argument to disprove the Judeo-christian god, much less the idea of God in general. Your only victories are against people who have poorer arguments than you do, but when you get to the core of your logical argument, as I have, you can't seem to offer any better defense to the claim that you are essentially arguing that God doesn't exist because you dislike the idea that God would be more intelligent than you, and therefore beyond your comprehension than "um, no".

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditWell, if you can find logical or theological faults with judeo-christianity, and you certainly can, then there is certainly a point to getting people to stop mortgaging their present (and fucking up the entire world, not to mention life for the rest of us in it) in exchange for a promise of paradise that is based on a lie.
Arguing a dogmatic atheism might not be the way to do it, though...



There are ways around suffering; ultimately one big part of them is to start out by accepting that "no one here gets out alive".

RPGPundit

To be clear, I am of the camp that believe no one will get out of it alive. However, I have many friends who gleefully look forward to eternal life in the after life....ah, that seemed a bit garbled.

I am not a fan of organized religion but I do not believe it is currently a big player in the world suffering arena. A desire for power and selfishness is much more pertinent cause. Whether someone uses the cloak of religion for it or doing public political service or even charitable organizations, evil can be found anywhere and excuses are too common.

Bill

Quote from: AkrasiaFalse.  

Please, I beg you, explain to me what these 'experiments' would involve.  

Go on, do it.

If string theory were developed further, it could lead to predictions about the properties of quarks and the like, and the interactions of the strong and weak force, and so on. Stupidly-high energy particle colliders are the traditional way to study these things. That's a rather distant prospect, and isn't possible at the moment.

I didn't say that it was possible today, or that such experiments were even proposed. I said

Quote from: JimbobozString theory has some hope of eventually producing testable predictions.

It hasn't so far, but if developed thoroughly enough, could do so.

"some hope... eventually... could..."

Those are the qualifiers one traditionally uses when talking about currently-untestable scientific theories. At the moment, even testing string theory looks less plausible than months-long sustained fusion reactions. Those at least we have some vague idea of how to go about. String theory, nope.

But in principle, it could predict properties of certain particles, and interactions of the basic forces.

In any case, the comparison between string theory and theology is a poor one. There are, what, not more than a hundred people in the world who have a real grasp of string theory? But there are millions of people who can speak in an educated way about theology, and anyone can speculate, and there speculations will not be different in end results to those of the educated ones.

Quote from: JimBobOzIf string theory were developed further...

EDITED to remove snarky answer.

Quote from: RPGPunditThis, as an answer, only seems to highlight your inability to actually defend your position.  

Ummm ... how?

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd it certainly doesn't stop it from being so.  How does "god exists but works in ways that are beyond human comprehension" end up relying on faith any more than "god doesn't exist because I don't like the idea lalalala I can't hear you"?

Yes, I already addresed the whole 'through a glass darkly' objection.

SNORE.

Why must I repeat myself endlessly?  

Should St.Paul as well?

:rolleyes:

Quote from: RPGPunditI mean fuck, 14 pages of this crap and you still haven't even been able to provide a decent argument to disprove the Judeo-christian god, much less the idea of God in general. Your only victories are against people who have poorer arguments than you do, but when you get to the core of your logical argument, as I have, you can't seem to offer any better defense to the claim that you are essentially arguing that God doesn't exist because you dislike the idea that God would be more intelligent than you, and therefore beyond your comprehension than "um, no".

Wow!  This is good.  You have SOME funny arguments there, mate.

Maybe the brains reconnect sometime soon? :confused: