by cofty 2596 Replies latest jw experiences
Cofty--right, christian theism says Jesus is God. But is he--just because the church fathers said so??
It may be that Jesus was a man who tried to transcend a bit of the horror of theism--its rules and the disappointing outcomes of false stories. Supposedly theists had him killed.
Theist who have to work jesus into this defense of god have got an impossible situation.
The issue is really that anyone trying to make out that the drowning of a quarter of a million people is even just part of a perfect act of love comes across as a heartless, inhuman and unchristian monster. Simon
Just describing things in emotive language does not add to a logical assessment of anything. You guys get so righteously indignant about this. You'd think it would be the theists that would be more inclinded to appeal to emotion, and yet we would not be able to compete even if we were inclined to.
Are you really so intrinsically altruistic that every seeming act of injustice really renders you incapable of logical objectivity? I have to say it just ends up coming across like a rant. And those who are incapable of building a logical thought just randomly throw in repeated soundbites.
I am aware that someone recently got banned from this discussion by merely suggesting that one factor IN CONTEXT was not as big of a game changer as some were purporting it to be. I believe that she actually said "in context", but all subsequent references to that modifier were edited out. Why?
Why not permit rational discussion to be given free reign for a while? I don't just mean in terms of undesirable comments being deleted. But even for your own benefit, curbing this gut reaction to stiffle any opposing view through censorship and vitriol might provide some of you with the opportunity to consider your possible fallibility.
Are you fallible? Perhaps if you cannot honestly answer that then the problem has been nailed before we even get into the discussion of any specific subject - theological or otherwise.
I know I'm falliable. I shouldn't even have to say it, but I only believe that my voice is worth hearing because I recognize that. If I didn't then all I would be offering is rhetoric. You don't have to be a Christian theist to have some humility, but some people make it appear that it's an impossible quality for an atheist.
jgnat - thanks for your cut and paste of a bad analogy. From reading your comments on other posts I believe that you are smart enough to understand the limitations of an analogy as applied by the person who provides it. Each analogy I have provided demonstrates a very specific point. To then try to pretend I am illustrating the full picture of the Asian tsunami in each one is a demonstration of ignorance. If we go down this road then every illustration and anaolgy ever given should ultimately be able to explain every aspect of the universe. A logical argument should break down the issue into the key principles that are in question and deal with them both individually and then collectively. When presenting an analogy that addresses an individual componant, it is a lazy and ignorant response to misapply it to the collective and label it weak.
I am aware that someone recently got banned from this discussion by merely suggesting that one factor IN CONTEXT was not as big of a game changer as some were purporting it to be. I believe that she actually said "in context", but all subsequent references to that modifier were edited out. Why?
Nice try, but that is not the case. It was a continued pattern of behavior and her posts were NOT edited.
Why not permit rational discussion to be given free reign for a while? I don't just mean in terms of undesirable comments being deleted. But even for your own benefit, curbing this gut reaction to stiffle any opposing view through censorship and vitriol might provide some of you with the opportunity to consider your possible fallibility.
I'm calling the beliefs out for what they are - inhuman and idiotic. If they are defendable then you wouldn't have cause to feel insulted. That you feel insulted has more to do with your beliefs.
Each analogy I have provided demonstrates a very specific point. To then try to pretend I am illustrating the full picture of the Asian tsunami in each one is a demonstration of ignorance. If we go down this road then every illustration and anaolgy ever given should ultimately be able to explain every aspect of the universe. A logical argument should break down the issue into the key principles that are in question and deal with them both individually and then collectively. When presenting an analogy that addresses an individual componant, it is a lazy and ignorant response to misapply it to the collective and label it weak.
So far you have given non-sensical analogies which you then revise to claim proof of things not under debate - we know that part of something is not equal to the whole of something.
You are not presenting any form of argument but doing everything you can to avoid addressing the very simple questions put to you.
Now you're attempting to paint the debate as unfair and tampered with.
Lame.
Flamegrilled - cut out the ad hominem
If you have something of substance to say why are you relying on one analogy after another?
You seem to be saying that drowning a quarter of a million people and devastating the lives of 5 million others is a loving thing to do if we look at it as part of a bigger picture.
In 79 pages you have resolutely refused to even hint at what this bigger picture might be. I am starting to suspect you haven't a clue what it is yourself. Its just some vague notion that there must be one.
What is your problem with analogies Cofty?
Simon said- We are not trying to prove that god doesn't exist, just get an admission that there is no evidence that he does exist.
Most intellectually-honest theologians or believers (even TEC) have absolutely no problem stating that, since if they've spent any time at all debating the issue, they freely admit no such tangible concrete evidence exists which can be presented to the atheist to prove God's existence. And as you say, that's exactly WHY Jesus makes such a big deal out of faith (belief without evidence), (and is even the excuse the Bible offers as to WHY Jesus discontinued miraculous healings, signs, etc: he claimed that being shown actual perceivable evidence impaired the faith-building process!)
In other words, the "appeal to the ineffable" is baked into the cake of Xianity's valuation of faith, since 'the need to know all things' (eg Doubting Thomas) is deprecated and pooh-poohed in the OT and in the NT.
However, 'known unknowns' DO exist, so the 'appeal to the unknown' claim of theists IS a valid sound argument, since it IS plausible. The REAL question then becomes, is it probable?
Also, 'appealing to the ineffable' is NOT an excuse to reach any conclusions! They cannot appeal to it, but then try to use their ignorance to make any other claim UNLESS it's limited to one particular aspect of God's trait which appears in the Bible (and that kind of 'moving of goalposts' is what made TEC so difficult to deal with: she usually wouldn't commit to positions, but merely slipped into her 'listen to Jesus' thing, a form of 'begging the question').
Simon said- Every theist should admit this because if there were evidence then they would not need faith. That they claim to have faith is proof that they have no evidence. That they seek to present evidence shows the true weakness of their faith.
I've made that same point many times myself, that by simply opening their mouths in defense, they lose...
HOWEVER, we're both overlooking Matt 24:14, where Jesus commanded believers to make disciples Worldwide; they are compelled to testify of their faith, proving themselves worthy of salvation by demonstrating works that SHOW their faith to others (this goes back to the topic of the faith thread, where I looked at the translation of the Greek word, 'hypostasis', more-properly rendered as 'title-deed', i.e. something that can be shown to others to prove your right to gain future possession of an item). Of course, most potential converts don't automatically accept beliefs of others via diffusion of thoughts through the ether and osmosis into their brains: that takes actual spoken words.
Also, this IS a discussion forum for such religious topics, so it's a tad disingenuous to base the claim that believers who engage in discussions of faith are disproving their personal faith, since that's a 'catch-22' scenario (not to mention, it would be rather boring if no one took their argument, right? Not to mention, Cofty demands that only "true believers" enter into his cage-match to the death)?
But again, we're talking about the underlying question of the exist of God, itself (theist/atheist/agnostic), a belief upon which theodicies rely; theodicy is another issue.
Simon said- Of course theists love to try to twist the debate into proving that god doesn't exist (impossible) because otherwise they have nothing really to say other than "I believe [whatever nonsense]" where [whatever nonsense] simply depends upon where you are in the world and what parents they were born to.
Yeah, theist's arguments are heavily-laden with 'appeals to emotion' and flowery words, since that's what religious beliefs are trying to create: the lovey-dovey feeling of having an emotional connection to God. That's why the approach of pointing out the mechanisms used to manipulate people is helpful, and hopefully they and others gain the ability for abstract thinking to recognize when others are using such tactics, and even more difficult, catch it when they are doing it themselves.
Simon said- Trying to claim the argument is equal and something "neither side can prove" is disengenuous and an attempt to make them appear of equal strength.
You're referring ONLY to the belief in existence of God issue (which is incredibly-difficult to convince another person of), and not to the theodicy issue, since you admit above the question of God's existence IS unprovable (and I wouldn't agree, although it takes alot of thinking, research, and and time).
However, the theodicy issue is actually EASIER for a theist to defend, since it's resting upon, and is quite inseparable from the unstated presupposition of God's existence. It's also harder to take on the much-more-difficult-to-challenge of theodicy, since MANY valid (and yes, even sound) versions exist, and operate in parallel to each other.
Check my post a few pages back, where I offered the "humans don't have any need to know" defense, based on completely-plausible and logically-sound analogies taken from the military/gov't realm, where the selective disclosure of classified information is needed, and information is desimminated only on a "need to know" basis (which is what Assange/Snowden are threatening: the right of the citizens to know what their governments don't want everyone to know, primarily in the name of national interests).
This concept is even reflected in the account of Job, where God could've easily provided Job an explanation that he could comprehend, but God verbally strips Job down, telling him he had no need to know (appeal to Divine Authority, AKA giving Job the Royal Kiss-off). It's ugly, it's authoritarian, yes, but that's how the Bible rolls, and if you already accept the premise of God who's omni-everything, then you have NO PROBLEM accepting that conclusion (esp after reading a Bible that incessently strips down the reader's ego, telling the reader how worthless he is, how he's too stupid to even place one foot in front of the other to walk without God, and then turns around and tells him how great God is for loving us (the same dynamic used by abusive spouses, and military in basic training).
Point being, if one accepts the existence of God in the first place, there are MANY perfectly-valid theodicies available to bolster that belief (including you, if you believed in God in the past, likely accepted such excuses as plausible, until they no longer worked). And just because this one pastor didn't know his own schtick and wasn't able to provide a satisfying answer to a certain non-believer is proof only of the incompetence and inexperience of the pastor, and little else.... Those who accept a belief in God should be asking themselves WHY they've already hurdled the much-higher barrier of accepting the highly-questionable premise that God exists, in the first place.
HOWEVER, no one can change the rules of inductive reasoning to suit their ends: fair is fair.... "Stacking the deck" is intellectually-dishonest, and such attempts only undermines credibility, as if we're willing to lie and decieve to accomplish our agenda. It's also unnecessary, since using the commonly-accepted (but often misunderstood) principles of logic can get to a life without a God.
(The Garden of Eve account is all about how easy it is to convince people of what they WANT to believe, i.e. the serpent saw Eve was desirous of (i.e. she coveted) eating the fruit, and came up with an ad-hoc rationalization that contained actually SOME truths, such that she was egged on to eat; all Hell broke lose!)
Yes, unraveling theodicies MAY lead some to conclude that God doesn't exist, but to argue it as an inevitability is bordering on the 'slippery slope' fallacy.
While pondering such questions leads SOME people to doubt, it's a mistake to commit the 'hasty generalization' fallacy, assuming it also applies to everyone else (as "your mileage may vary" warns of us the fallacy). Many of us have personal experience with theodicies to demonstrate it's not Kryptonite: eg as a kid, I've had these SAME discussions with my JW family, and they ALL accepted such reasons as perfectly-valid and reasonable excuses to dismiss the question, without so much as blinking. As explained before, 'hasty generalization' is the same fallacy someone commits when denying climate change, based on the weather in HIS neighborhood, or when someone tries to extrapolate to a Worldwide population from a single region of the World: 'you can't get there from here' without making many questionable assumptions along the way.
(NOTE: before someone accuses me of doing so ("You did it, too!" tu quoque claim) by citing my family experience, I'm DISPROVING a 'hasty generalization' claim of a certain logic-wielding would-be slayer of theodicy, and not MAKING a claim; a SINGLE bit of evidence falsifies the hypothesis, and I've explained a mechanism for why it is illogical).
Simon said- The realist is that theism is totally dependent on opinion, flip-flopping arguments, tradition and no small amount of hysteria.
That is sadly-true, but the reality is that the Bible doesn't afford only believers the exclusive rights to 'cherry-pick' evidence to support their claims: I've seen atheists completely botch their interpretations of what the Bible passage means (when read in proper historical and textual context), so no side gets off scot-free.
IN FACT, the very capability for the Bible to serve as fodder for serving up a nice slice of 'confirmation bias' to suit every desire actually works against theists, since an omnipotent, omniscient being should be able to come up with a better way of dispersing his Divine Will besides commissioning it to be written in a language without punctuation marks! Heck, even computer file downloads have an error-check system to ensure there were no missing bits lost in translation; God couldn't have done even something like that?
All such examples are not 'faith killers' on their own, acting in isolation, but simply add up to the total circumstantial (inferential) evidence that, when considered individually and when added to the other questions (eg theodicy issues), leads one to conclude if it's more probable that a God exists or not.
It goes back to the old canard of you cannot fight irrational dogma by using irrational dogma, and forcing people to accept our conclusions is NOT teaching people to think and decide for themselves; it's actually continuing the mind-set of the JWs of not teaching people to catch fish but shoving them down their throats after we've decided it's good for them.
But getting to that point of rehabilitating people to think logically and rationally is no easy task: as the Eve example shows, all it takes is ONE false premise to enter into the decision matrix, and all Hell breaks lose!
What is your problem with analogies Cofty? - Flamegrilled
Succinct analogies are very useful to illuminate an answer. You use them as a substitute for an answer.
You don't engage in honest conversation. I had to ask you the same question 4 times and you still haven't answered it.
After my very first comment you insisted that I narrow my thoughts to the very specific field in which you framed the problem. Now you accuse me of not painting the bigger picture.
What exactly do you want?
Cofty, would you say that flamegrilled's idea of there being and unknown ungraspable unknown is a mashup of "it's a mystery" and "just have faith"? I ask because, as I think about it, he is saying it's a mystery, but one we could never understand even if we had the information, so just have faith.
Cofty, would you say that a fair summary of your argument is "if god exists god dun it"?
After my very first comment you insisted that I narrow my thoughts to the very specific field in which you framed the problem.
How so?
would you say that a fair summary of your argument is "if god exists god dun it"?
If the god of christian theism exists the tsunami happened with his full knowledge and permission. You already agreed to that.
