Bohm said-
Holy cow that never occured to me before! Is this those brown people I keep hearing about? Did you know the moon is smaller than the sun but larger than an orange?
Uh, I was actually agreeing with your point, and providing an example?
Viviane said- Oh, it's not JUST doing that, it's casting in sharp relief the real underlying question, WHY is there absolutely no way to get information and why are any potential reason why so uncomfortable?
AND
Viviane said-Sorry, it should have read "reasons" in plural, not "reason" in singular. Otherwise, it makes perfect sense.
So what you really meant to write was this:
Oh, it's not JUST doing that, it's casting in sharp relief the real underlying question, WHY is there absolutely no way to get information and why are any potential reasons why so uncomfortable?
And that makes "perfect sense" to YOU?
PS on this:
Adam said- However, you went off the rails with the part in bold, falsely concluding my words were prescriptive, and not merely descriptive of the current situation. That's a classic example of the "naturalistic fallacy", confusing the description of 'what is' for an argument that is prescriptive, arguing for 'what ought' to be, as if I was defending theology).
Viviane said- Then perhaps you ought not write it as if that's what they should be doing, for example "Hence, the theist's refusal and/or inability to answer is NOT a sign of irrationality, but it's actually a step in the right direction, the ONLY rational response they could provide!". It's not a fallacy on my part if you are going to retconn strawman your own argument to say what you want it say, not what you actually said.
What you're referring to is "moving the goalposts", and I didn't do that, either. Try again.
Don't blame me for your extrapolating what was specific advice on a single issue (theodicy) to other areas (theism); you inappropriately over-interpreted my words, despite my repeated efforts to avoid such conclusion. That's ALL on your head, Jack.
That's silly, since as an atheist for the last half-century (who lost my JW family as a result of deciding to adopt a rationalist approach to go to college and eventually earn a doctorate), the odds are great I've likely had more motivation, time, and opportunity to investigate the question of theology than many here, including learning of physiology and psychological roots that explain WHY religious beliefs are so pervasive and tenacious within the human mind (even while many here were still knocking on doors with WT/Awake! in hand, trying to 'save' others!).
Viviane said- That's an interesting appeal to your own authority and special pleading for yourself all wrapped into one. Like I said before, yes, you're very smart, but so are a lot of people here, at least as smart as you. Your condescending attitude and acting like you are smarter than everyone else won't get you far. (You also commited the anecdotal and composition fallacies in that last statement. Do they give refunds on doctorates?)
Dude, r u 4 realz?
You've mastering the not-so-difficult art of getting yourself lost in the forest for the trees, since most anyone who possesses even a SHRED of intellectual honesty would simply apologize after someone pointed out their "naturalization" fallacy, rather than only digging themselves in deeper.
Instead, are you really trying to claim that people don't have the right to appeal to their personal experience to justify holding their own personal beliefs, whether atheists or theists?
Holy Hades, Viviane, that's absurd beyond imagination, since it's as if you're completely unaware of the 'freedom of thought' doctine, a fundamental liberty encapsulated in the Bill of Rights which guarantees to all the right to their opinion; it's a concept that is basis of many OTHER individual liberties (eg freedom of speech, freedom of religious belief, doctrine of informed consent, etc)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_thought
I am telling YOU that I AM an atheist: you have NO INFLUENCE on my brain (and even less so, after seeing your 'command' of logic and reasoning), as it's not your brain to form an opinion.
NO ONE has the right to DECIDE for others, and no one needs to appeal to ANYTHING to justify THEIR personal beliefs to others, so your entire argument is hogwash and perhaps of value to those living in cookoo land.
It's almost as if you still carry some of that JW baggage, eg Jesus said people DIDN'T have the right to their own thoughts (eg looking at a women with lust in one's heart was tantamount to committing adultery)? Some here voluntarily sacrificed the right to their own beliefs by voluntarily joining a religious CULT which took away their freedom of thoughts...
Adam
