|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 03/20/2007 : 16:51:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Indeterminacy
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Indeterminacy
Maybe God does exist, maybe he doesn't. Neither one of us can prove it either way, so you have your point of view and I have mine. We don't know. So we choose which point to support until we know more.
Why should anyone be required to prove that God does not exist?
Most of the people on the SFN religion forums are dedicated to proving that God does not exist, so what's your point?
It would seem you've been reading the words, but failed to grasp their meaning. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2007 : 16:54:34 [Permalink]
|
GeeMack wrote: quote:
That attempt to support the validity of his belief in magic by trying to demonstrate that the Revolutionary War may be equally as unevidenced as the events depicted in the Bible was ridiculous...
The most civil and skeptical response would have been to explain why the Revolutionary War is much more evidenced than events depicted in the Bible. Not just dismiss it as “ridiculous”. By calling it ridiculous but not explaining why it was ridiculous, you send the implication that Indeterminacy is either too stupid to level with or that he is being intentionally ridiculous (behaving like a troll).
quote:
And again, that statement is blatantly false. It appears he either radically misunderstands the position of the members of SFN and their concept of skepticism, or he is making a wholly unsubstantiated claim, or he is flat out lying. I didn't call him a liar. I asked Indeterminacy to specify.
You just presented an ultimatum where if he does “specify” he automatically demonizes himself. Surely there is a less shitty way of objecting to his statement.
quote:
His comment was also pretty obviously confrontational. Therefore, to consider the possibility that he is a troll is quite reasonable given the evidence he has provided so far.
No, you assume it was confrontational because you found it offensive. If Indeterminacy has not yet been exposed to many of the fine nuances behind the whole God debate, and has not thought them all up himself yet, he very well may have thought we were trying to prove that God doesn't exist and that we did so proudly and knowingly.
This stuff isn't second nature to most people, GeeMack. I didn't becoming an agnostic until I was 13, and that's still pretty young for a lot of skeptics. And I didn't have a fully fleshed out Humanistic worldview until my mid-20's, and I'm a pretty thoughtful person on these matters. If someone comes here being civil, open to, and curious about skepticism, they should be welcomed on this forum, and treated in kind. Especially when they are severely outnumbered with regards to some of their opinions or beliefs.
I say we should be this way because I'm sick of only debating with wackjobs like bigbrain and fundamentalists like Bill Scott. It is so damn refreshing to hear from a more moderate believer who actually wants to talk to us atheists and agnostics about these issues. Especially considering that moderate believers are the majority at least in America, we on the fringes should want to better understand moderate religious belief.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/20/2007 16:54:52 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2007 : 16:59:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Most of the people on the SFN religion forums are dedicated to proving that God does not exist, so what's your point?
I'm wondering if this is simply an unfortunate choice of wording. What about this:
Most of the people on the SFN religion forums are dedicated to asserting that God does not exist.
or perhaps the more wordy but also more accurate and specific:
Most of the people on the SFN religion forums are dedicated to asserting that the likelihood of God's existence is so small that it is not even worth considering.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2007 : 17:17:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Indeterminacy
If religion can be absurd to the point of disregard, then what are you saying about your claim to Christianity?quote:
That is was a huge mistake.
For a while when I was in great need of emotional comfort, it provided that comfort.
Other than that, worshipping God has been a big waste of energy and time.
My experience is more than 25 years as a practicing Christian, if you want to pull rank.
It's not my place to tell you how to waste your time...
...but seeing how much time you have invested in worshipping God, I can understand the difficulty of accepting the personal loss of prestiege admitting that you might have been wrong.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2007 : 17:21:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox...
The most civil and skeptical response would have been to explain why the Revolutionary War is much more evidenced than events depicted in the Bible. Not just dismiss it as “ridiculous”. By calling it ridiculous but not explaining why it was ridiculous, you send the implication that Indeterminacy is either too stupid to level with or that he is being intentionally ridiculous (behaving like a troll).
I actually rephrased his ridiculous comparison in a way that would actually be less ridiculous, a more legitimate comparison. But it seems you entirely missed that. You want I should send you my replies in a PM before I post them so you can fix them up a little and make them a little more friendly? 
quote:
You just presented an ultimatum where if he does “specify” he automatically demonizes himself. Surely there is a less shitty way of objecting to his statement.
Surely there is. Surely there are more shitty ways, too. And I'm sorry I didn't offer the option of "(D) Other", but it does exist whether I provided it or not. I think we can assume Indeterminacy has free will and the ability to answer "other" for himself, even if that option wasn't listed. This is a discussion, not a test. I named what appeared to be the most obvious possibilities.
quote:
No, you assume it was confrontational because you found it offensive. If Indeterminacy has not yet been exposed to many of the fine nuances behind the whole God debate, and has not thought them all up himself yet, he very well may have thought we were trying to prove that God doesn't exist and that we did so proudly and knowingly.
Then it would have been either a radical misunderstanding of the position of the members here or a wholly unevidenced claim. He still has the opportunity to let us know which.
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2007 : 17:29:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
I'm wondering if this is simply an unfortunate choice of wording. What about this:
Most of the people on the SFN religion forums are dedicated to asserting that God does not exist.
or perhaps the more wordy but also more accurate and specific:
Most of the people on the SFN religion forums are dedicated to asserting that the likelihood of God's existence is so small that it is not even worth considering.
I think the problem was the whole "are dedicated to" part, marf. That is, while I frequent SFN and all, I'd say my involvement in atheism falls far short of any reasonable definition of "dedicated to" or any such. Am I an atheist? Sure. But have I "dedicated [it] to asserting that God does not exist"? No, no really. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2007 : 18:32:41 [Permalink]
|
Is "why don't you show us the evidence in favor of God's existence?" actually even asserting anything? Other than the implication that it is the claimant's duty to provide the evidence?
I mean overall, the question doesn't actually come up all that much, so "dedicated" certainly isn't the right word. I don't even think about it unless someone else tries to assert God's existence. And even then, making a counter-assertion isn't likely to get a person far (it'd just devolve into "is too / is not"). A more socratic approach is often called for.
But back to Indeterminacy... I have a feeling that his statement is the result of an "unfortunate choice" of perspective. To someone who is dedicated to God, then a room full of doubters may look, indeed, like a snake pit of devout anti-theists. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2007 : 19:06:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Indeterminacy
I choose to follow many of the principles written in the Bible, but not all.
(May I first of all say that's it's refreshing to see a christian in these fora who doesn't proclaim the inerrancy of the bible.) Back to your comment above:
Most people do, christians or not. Even those that have never read or even heard about the bible. To an atheist (or even most religious people?) it is obvious why this would be. People follow these principles because they feel that they are right and that feeling does not stem from any belief in any deities. In other words, an innate sense of the rightness of these principles have made people choose the bible as their book of "authority" rather than that the "authority" of the bible has made people follow the principles.
Reading your other posts I think you may have a different definition of "skeptic" than most people here do. Your skepticism seems to relate to a philosophical stance where there is no "real knowledge" and, even if there was, there would seem to be no way to verify it. The skepticism used in these fora has adopted science as it's philosophy - i.e. we remain skeptical of claims for which there is no scientific evidence.
Oh, and I'm glad that your faith in your god is strong enough that you can question it. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2007 : 19:16:42 [Permalink]
|
Most atheists see the inherent danger of a belief in bibical inerrancy, or of dismissing scientific discoveries which contradict their theology.
But Indeterminacy, in an attempt to intellectually justify what I'm sure he's smart enough to realize is a preposterous sounding set of beliefs, is actually advocating a position which poses a much greater threat. His basic assertion that there is nothing knowable, that everything comes down to "faith," is a sort of reductive solipsism. In this worldview, his faith in an invisible creator is epistemologically equal to a scientist's "faith" that water boils at 212 degrees F. Of course, such a view reduces science, indeed any pursuit of knowledge, to a foolish enterprise at best.
He is quite willing to literally throw away the sum total of human progress and discovery in order to keep his precious belief in god intact.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 03/20/2007 19:19:28 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2007 : 19:46:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by Indeterminacy...
Most of the people on the SFN religion forums are dedicated to proving that God does not exist, so what's your point?
That statement is blatantly false. You either radically misunderstand the position of the members of SFN and their concept of skepticism, or you're making a wholly unsubstantiated claim, or you're flat out lying. Which is it?
Hey... cut him some slack.
Just because he is stating a conclusion with a non-subjective modifier doesn't mean he isn't just stating an opinion! (or so says Kil, McQ, beskeptigal, and marfknox anyway).
And, apparently, it is insulting to people to insist that they state opinions as opinions, instead of faulty conclusions.
(for the record, I agree with your assessment)
marfknox said:
quote:
I'm wondering if this is simply an unfortunate choice of wording. What about this:
Most of the people on the SFN religion forums are dedicated to asserting that God does not exist.
or perhaps the more wordy but also more accurate and specific:
Most of the people on the SFN religion forums are dedicated to asserting that the likelihood of God's existence is so small that it is not even worth considering.
Ohh... I see now. Your standard is different based on who you are talking to, or about. By your previously stated criteria, you should be defending Indeterminancy's opinion! Not insisting that he change the phrasing to something that resembles an actual opinion.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2007 : 19:57:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Ohh... I see now. Your standard is different based on who you are talking to, or about. By your previously stated criteria, you should be defending Indeterminancy's opinion! Not insisting that he change the phrasing to something that resembles an actual opinion.
Actually, marf did suggest that beskeptigal change her phrasing. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2007 : 20:10:18 [Permalink]
|
I read that as sarcasm, not an actual request for her to restate her faulty conclusion as an actual opinion.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2007 : 20:21:05 [Permalink]
|
| You may have a point there, Dude. But then again, marf didn't make an actual request of Indeterminacy, either. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
Indeterminacy
New Member
USA
26 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2007 : 21:13:49 [Permalink]
|
Well, thank you to the few who supported my points, especially Marfknox. I was waiting to see if anyone would give me the benefit of the doubt.
I once heard someone say that the more unsure someone is in their beliefs, the nastier they can be to the one who challenges their beliefs. Many here in this forum ripped my ideas to shreds, called me names, said I was stupid, ridiculous and ignorant. I harbor no resent to those who did so. I guess whoever made that statement was right - people don't like to be challenged with new ideas, not even here.
Good luck in all your pursuits, everyone. |
If I ask the question with the answer to the question I am after, will it dawn on me? |
| Edited by - Indeterminacy on 03/20/2007 21:20:09 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Something to chew on....
