Most irritating theological argument ever

[Ruby]

Re: Re: Re: Most irritating theological argument ever

Ruby, you are much more tolerant than I, I'm afraid.

I was also "on the inside" and we all know how well that went. I do tend to keep my mouth shut most of the time, but there are sometimes these fundies around here just hit me at the right time and I open up both barrels of the debate shotgun. 9 times out of 10, they don't know what hit them. Sometimes all it takes is a single sentence to shut them up, other times, the debate rages for days (interrupted, of course).

Then, of course, there is the rare occasion that I envoke a tactic I learned from here:

I tell them I am preparing for the coming of Cthulhu.

For some reason, that always seems to get them.

Well, I certainly get angry and frustrated sometimes. There are some very unfortunate Christian arguments out there that make it hard to keep from laughing or pouncing into a debate. However, I know what it feels like to be made fun of for believing a certain way....whether as a Christian or now as an agnostic, and I just don't want to do that to someone else. I do want to debate and disagree and give another point of view...................but hopefully, I can keep from being insulting.

My hubby has been having a little debate with a guy at work. This guy is trying to convince my hubby that the bible is the true inspired (magical) word of god. My hubby was born and raised a Christian all his life. Now, like me, he is agnostic....but he studying like crazy to get answers. Anyhow, he has said some very good and clever things to this guy who is trying to win him back to god. The guy's only "good" argument for the legitimacy of the bible was that it is "powerful" . He says the Holy spirit moves you as you read it. You "feel" something. Personally, I "feel" more reading a novel or watching a comedy or horror movie. I am much more moved by listening to Vivaldi or Puccini.

Anyway, I guess that is one of the most ridiculous arguments I hear a lot from Christians. They think that the bible is so powerful that the very words you read will cause magic....and they think that praying or singing in a church can cause amazing "moves" of the "holy spirit". That usually means someone starts running around the church or other start dancing in a frenzy or people are rolling around or falling out. The holy spirit has been blamed for doing some pretty bizarre things to people!!!!

 

[Ruby]

Re: Re: Re: Most irritating theological argument ever

Nothing to be guilty about at all. A perfectly reasonable sentiment. Nyarlathotep is attacking a strawman in describing it as an argument.

There should be no reason why life should have more meaning if one is an atheist. If anything there should be less meaning.

Well, I am not an atheist......not yet. I just know that as I have left my Christian beliefs behind, things have made more sense and life has opened up to me. I feel more feel.

Worship God??? Why on earth should any one do that even if God should exist??

I am still learning and it seems hard for me to grasp the concept of there being a god who pays no attention to us and has no interaction with us. It would be hard to worship a god who does nothing to help you or anyone else.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Most irritating theological argument ever

Then it sounds like you need you a hug!

Um, thanks.

THough when I get into one of my foul moods, it is usually best for everyoe to steer clear of me. I always calm down eventually.

 

[Acrimonious]

The best thing to do in such situations is present the exact same argument back to them, but replace "God" with another deity that they do not believe in. Greek, Norse, Egyptian, or even other current religious deities (Allah, Shiva, etc) are choice examples.

How do you even get up in the morning without Artemis?

Do you lie there, knowing full well that life without Artemis has absolutely no meaning whatsoever, and wonder if you should simply stay curled up in bed and sleep for the rest of your days?

When they point out that you're referring to a mythological figure, it's always fun to point out how "Mythology" basically equates to "Out of style Religion." Then ask them how long they think their mythology is going to stay en vogue.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

The best thing to do in such situations is present the exact same argument back to them, but replace "God" with another deity that they do not believe in. Greek, Norse, Egyptian, or even other current religious deities (Allah, Shiva, etc) are choice examples.

How do you even get up in the morning without Artemis?

Do you lie there, knowing full well that life without Artemis has absolutely no meaning whatsoever, and wonder if you should simply stay curled up in bed and sleep for the rest of your days?

When they point out that you're referring to a mythological figure, it's always fun to point out how "Mythology" basically equates to "Out of style Religion." Then ask them how long they think their mythology is going to stay en vogue.

I like it. I am rather fond of Bacchus myself, I just don't see how anyone can live without believing in Bacchus, God of wine and revelry.

 

[hypnotoad]

This is of course complete crap. At the very least you need to argue for your claim here. How many people who subscribe to the "supernatural" agree with you? BTW I assume our consciousnesses are supernatural, right?

There is no evidence that any supernatural things exist in any real sense. Therefore, to act as though they do is foolish. At some point a person has to choose which supernatural phenomena they are going to believe in, because they can't believe in all of them, there being an infinite number of possibilities. So people who believe in supernatural phenomena are choosing to reject the existence of some (without evidence for or against their existence) and to accept the existence of some (without evidence for or against their existence). They are choosing based on what makes them feel good. Is that good? Is it bad? I think it doesn't matter until they start making decisions that affect their life.

Why do you say our conciousnesses are supernatural? Just because they have not been naturally explained? Do you hold that they will never be naturally explained? Be careful now - that could be stated as a testable theory.

Why does everyone on this board keep talking about evidence all the time. Is no-one capable of getting it into their heads that metaphysical hypotheses are different from scientific ones?

Sure they are. They apparently don't require evidence. Therefore they are untestable. Therefore they are useful only as mental exercise. I could be wrong of course. If so enlighten me.

This is of course complete crap. At the very least you need to
You use reason. It's no good spouting forth about evidence because no-one has a clue what evidence would count towards the existence of a God or count towards the possibility of atheism until one understands what one is precisely saying in asserting there is, or is not, a God.

A question. What conceivable state of affairs would need to pertain before you were to relinquish your atheism?

There is all kinds of evidence that would count. For example, say there were some religious writings that made accurate predictions of the future. Or gave accurate information about the distant past. Or really any kind of information that was otherwise unknowable. Of course it would have to be more accurate than chance. Spewing out countless pieces of information and getting a couple right doesn't count.

I can't say that a God doesn't exist. I say that if God exists it doesn't matter because (up to this point at least) no valuable information can be obtained about him/her/it. Why believe in something like that? Tell me what is the difference between believing in the existence of God and believing in the existence of glarshnaks.


There are many ways I could be converted to theism. Say the bible, koran, talmud, etc. could be proven accurate. Say a booming voice from heaven told everybody "I am God. I exist."
I don't accept the existence of something unless there is a reason to. Do you?
Are there any reasons to accept the existence of God?

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

How do you even get up in the morning without Artemis?

Bloody Hell! I never thought about that! How do I?

Wait a minute. I'm The Mad Arab. I worship a God what does stuff for me. Like bring me fish!

Just because I'm an Arab doesn't mean I go for that Allah stuff. That's just another version of the Big Guy who loves you and treats you like ◊◊◊◊.

I'm The Mad Arab. I'd rather worship my buddy who is coming to visit me in Chicago.

Y'all better behave!

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Most irritating theological argument ever

II
Worship God??? Why on earth should any one do that even if God should exist??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I am still learning and it seems hard for me to grasp the concept of there being a god who pays no attention to us and has no interaction with us. [/B]

Or one could hold the view that everything we ever experience is an interaction with God.

 

[Interesting Ian]

There is no evidence that any supernatural things exist in any real sense.

Oh for God's sake. Please comprehensively explain your terminology and give reasons

You really must give a precise definition of what a "supernatural" thing is. In particular explain why a putative material world and consciousness are not "supernatural". Explain in detail why you think God's consciousness is "supernatural".

After doing that explain what would constitute evidence for the existence of these allegedly "supernatural" things. Or is your metaphysic (materialism or whatever) unfalsifiable?

Therefore, to act as though they do is foolish. At some point a person has to choose which supernatural phenomena they are going to believe in, because they can't believe in all of them, there being an infinite number of possibilities. So people who believe in supernatural phenomena are choosing to reject the existence of some (without evidence for or against their existence) and to accept the existence of some (without evidence for or against their existence).

See above. Explain what "supernatural" means.

Why do you say our conciousnesses are supernatural?

You introduced the word "supernatural" not me. Either you think consciousness is supernatural or not. But if not then don't make exceptions because a particular consciousness is deemed to be infinite in scope. At least not without supplementary reasons.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Why does everyone on this board keep talking about evidence all the time. Is no-one capable of getting it into their heads that metaphysical hypotheses are different from scientific ones?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure they are. They apparently don't require evidence. Therefore they are untestable. Therefore they are useful only as mental exercise. I could be wrong of course. If so enlighten me.

Your complete non-comprehension fits in well with the vast majority of people on this board. If you feel so contemptuous regarding metaphysical hypotheses then why are you so sure that atheism is the correct depiction of reality?

I don't accept the existence of something unless there is a reason to. Do you?

Indeed, absolutely.

Are there any reasons to accept the existence of God?

Are there any reasons to accept atheism?

 

[Roadtoad]

Has anyone ever suggested such a thing? Or are you simply attacking a strawman? Even if it were the case that people were so stupid as to express such a feeling, how does this give any evidence against an appropriately defined God?

Present an appropriately defined God, and we can discuss it. But, no, I'm not attacking a strawman. These are actual arguments presented to me. And, yes, I get a little irritated with it.

That doesn't alter the fact that it may lack purpose.

You're obviously not married, or a parent.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Present an appropriately defined God, and we can discuss it.

{sighs}

Just let's say an all pervasive awareness, encompassing and permeating all things.

But, no, I'm not attacking a strawman. These are actual arguments presented to me. And, yes, I get a little irritated with it.

I suspect they actually mean there is no purpose to life. Absolutely true should your interpretation of the world be true.

You're obviously not married, or a parent.

Yeah, I'm a lonely sad bastard who lives by himself. This however has sod all to do with this simple observation of mine (and of many other people).

But anyway, yes your life has meaning. You love your wife and your children. If you tell me this, then I have absolutely no reason to doubt you. And that's a wonderful thing. You're a lucky guy.

And in which case you have to ask yourself why my observation that if the westernized metaphysic associated with atheism is true, this somehow makes these feelings less real. Obviously it doesn't. So your life definitely has meaning; indeed by definition. This I do not quarrel with. But still, if westernized atheism is true, your life and the Universe has no purpose. But don't worry about it. I wouldn't dream of using that fact as a supposed "argument" for "God".

 

[hypnotoad]

Oh for God's sake. Please comprehensively explain your terminology and give reasons

You really must give a precise definition of what a "supernatural" thing is. In particular explain why a putative material world and consciousness are not "supernatural". Explain in detail why you think God's consciousness is "supernatural".

After doing that explain what would constitute evidence for the existence of these allegedly "supernatural" things. Or is your metaphysic (materialism or whatever) unfalsifiable?

See above. Explain what "supernatural" means.

Here is a definition, though I am sure you would not find it complete. If there is a different word you would prefer to use, by all means let me know. I think the purpose of words is to facilitate communication. If the word supernatural is not doing that then let's use another.

SUPERNATURAL
From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Etymology: Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- + natura nature
Date: 15th century
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)
- supernatural noun
- su·per·nat·u·ral·ly /-'na-ch&r-&-lE, -'nach-r&-, -'na-ch&r-lE/ adverb
- su·per·nat·u·ral·ness noun

Well, by this definition I suppose the point can be made that it is unreasonable to expect the supernatural to produce any observable phenomenon. Once again, let me say that I do not claim to prove that the supernatural does not exist. It is, by this definition, impossible to prove or disprove its existence. What irritates me to no end, however, is the billions of people on this planet who claim (with words and/or deeds) that such existence has been proven, or if not proven at least that there is some reason to believe it. I don't claim to be able to disprove God's existence, just the versions imagined by Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc.

Do you think it is possible to prove or disprove the existence of a God? How is the concept of God different from the concept of angels? Of Leprechauns? Etc.

Do you think that God exerts any influence on the natural world today? Why?/Why not?
If it is impossible to know then how is God's existence functionally different than God's nonexistence?
Say there are undetectable unaffectable beings inside your head that control your every move. I can't prove there aren't. I can't prove there are. Does it matter if there are? Will it change anything? Do they exist? I suspect by your definition of existence they do exist, since I have mentioned them. Are they real? I don't know. It makes no difference in the decisions I make whether they exist or not, or, in fact, whether I believe in them or not. Functionally speaking, it is the same thing. Call it what you will. If you want to say they exist, I see no problem with that. If a person is going to make life decisions because they believe the beings want them to do something then that person is a fool.

You introduced the word "supernatural" not me. Either you think consciousness is supernatural or not. But if not then don't make exceptions because a particular consciousness is deemed to be infinite in scope. At least not without supplementary reasons.

Your complete non-comprehension fits in well with the vast majority of people on this board. If you feel so contemptuous regarding metaphysical hypotheses then why are you so sure that atheism is the correct depiction of reality?

Are there any reasons to accept atheism?

I think that conciousness is a natural phenomenon that science can not yet explain completely. (Yes there are parts that can be explained already). If you are going to call a phenomenon that science hasn't explained yet supernatural then I am sure you realize that had you been living a few hundred years ago you would be making all sorts of ridiculous claims about what is supernatural. But it seems like you don't agree that the word supernatural is appropriate anyway.

I am not sure that atheism is the correct depiction of reality. But what is the difference between believing in a god for no reason and believing in anything else for no reason? Unless you have a reason to believe in God?

Indeed, absolutely.

How do you decide what to believe in?
Let me get this straight. You are saying that you believe in things for no reason? Can you tell me why? Oh, wait, that would be giving a reason. Never mind. I am going to treat this response as a joke unless you explain it further.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

This I do not quarrel with. But still, if westernized atheism is true, your life and the Universe has no purpose. But don't worry about it. I wouldn't dream of using that fact as a supposed "argument" for "God".

And you are not one of the people who trots out this irritating argument either. And no I am not just attacking a strawman either, I have heard heard people use it as an argument in exactly those words (even if you are right and they really mean "purpose", it would have no bearing on whether God exists or not). If you have never heard it trotted out as an argument for God's existance I can only say that it shows that you have far fewer fundies over there than we do over here.

 

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Psydox

I choose to believe in something you say is false but yet can't prove is false

I couldn't make sense out of most of your post, but I can respond to this. First, I can prove it is false - just as soon as you define it. God is only unprovable as long as He remains undefined. Second, I don't have to prove it is false. You have to prove it is true. This is called the burden of proof, something that you are obviously unaware of. Do you believe in elves, pixies, trolls, or unicorns? Do you believe in an imaginary monster I will make up tommorrow? You cannot prove that this monster I haven't invented yet doesn't exist... but you don't believe in it, do you? And you'd think I was nuts if I told you that since you can't disprove it, I'm entitled by the rules of reason to believe. Correct?

Yahzi, take yourself out of your isolation box and consider that all the bad actions come not from an individual belief but instead from a thing called Hate.

See, this is just false. Not all bad things come from hate. Some come from just sheer ignorance. Back when doctors used to put leeches on your privates to cure you, they didn't hate you. They actually thought they were helping.

Why don't you take yourself out of your ideological box, and try to see the world as it is instead of as you want it to be.

Who is the one that used words like : naive, ignorant, retarded, mind-numbingly self-centered, just because I will not agree with you and choose instead to maintain my individual belief.

Um, that would be me. I can't believe you forgot already, but I'm happy to clear up the confusion.

The reason I applied those words is because you choose to maintain your individual belief, regardless of the evidence.

Finally let me ask you this.....is it the belief that does bad or is it the person ?

It is the person, obviously. Beliefs don't do anything. But you know that, right? So let me ask you this: is it the person that does the bad, or is it the Hate? See how stupid your question is?

Hate enables and causes evil. So does ignorance. So does willful denial of the facts.

I think you are a total *&^* hole .....but hey that's just my belief. Dosen't mean I'm going to go to Wal-Mart now and blow everyone away because I think this of you.

But you see, that is a true belief. I am an a$$hole. I'm not proud of it, but I'll you this: it beats being a self-indulgent creep any day of the week.

If there weren't so many creeps actively perpetuating ignorance (and therefor evil) for their own selfish emotional reasons, I wouldn't be such an a$$hole. But as long as the Pope can ignore science and condem millions to death, well, frankly, anybody who has a functioning conscience is going to be a bit of an a$$hole about it.

 

[Yahzi]

The best thing to do in such situations is present the exact same argument back to them, but replace "God" with another deity that they do not believe in.

Hey! I got an original quote very much like that:

"All that is necessary to defeat a theologian is to repeat his arguments back to him, but replacing the word God with any other word." - Yahzi

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Psydox


I couldn't make sense out of most of your post, but I can respond to this. First, I can prove it is false - just as soon as you define it. God is only unprovable as long as He remains undefined. Second, I don't have to prove it is false. You have to prove it is true. This is called the burden of proof, something that you are obviously unaware of. Do you believe in elves, pixies, trolls, or unicorns? Do you believe in an imaginary monster I will make up tommorrow? You cannot prove that this monster I haven't invented yet doesn't exist... but you don't believe in it, do you? And you'd think I was nuts if I told you that since you can't disprove it, I'm entitled by the rules of reason to believe. Correct?

Yahzi, you really are a clueless tithead {sighs}

Get a clue that when people talk about God they might not be referring to a thing in the world.

 

[sorgoth]

I think the worst one is either "you can't disprove it" or "you can't see love either!".

Actually....One could argue that the hormone increase, the adrenaline, the claming hormone that's released (Forget the name) and many other chemical changes that happen when someone is smitten, put onto a graph sheet could be, technically, seeing love.

Tell them to disprove you being God. They can't, because you simply decide to not do anything God-like for the moment.

 

[hypnotoad]

Get a clue that when people talk about God they might not be referring to a thing in the world.

Amen to that. But then I am sure you meant it differently.

How dare you insult unicorns by elevating your god to a higher plane of existence. Unicorns are at a higher plane than your god and you can't prove otherwise.
p.s. Especially the pink ones.

 

[uruk]

Interesting Ian wrote:
Yahzi, you really are a clueless tithead {sighs}

Resorting to insults again I see. {sighs} Shameful

Why does everyone on this board keep talking about evidence all the time. Is no-one capable of getting it into their heads that metaphysical hypotheses are different from scientific ones?

True there are some differences between them. By definition
(and not one that I made up) a hypothesis is a tentative explination that accounts for a set of facts and can be tested by further investigation.

Some views of metaphysics question the validity of reality and matter. Therefore a metaphysical hypothesis can only be based on assumptions rather than facts. Facts presupposes the validity of reality or having a "real","demonstrable" existance. Facts have no meaning for them.

They can only "test" or verify their hypothesis by logical arguments or reasoning. The problem here is that the hypothisis
is based on uproveable assumptions. As a result it's easy for them
come up with any kind of wily-nily belief just so long as it follows some internal logic.

Science, on the other hand, makes only one major assumption, that this percieved "reality" of our senses is "real" and chooses only to accept the "logical arguments" within this frame of reference.

The difference is that this "reality" has an "internal logic" that does not conform to our human preconceptions or notions and can be verified or tested with the same conclusions being arrived at by separate "perceiving minds". One of those conclusions is that the mind derives from matter. But that argument is based on verifiable and testable "evidence" within the internal logic of the scientific view .


The form of metaphysics that I believe that Ian subscribes to does not require the independent verification of a perceiving mind just acceptance of the internal logic. They are able to ignore the internal logic or "evidence" of science's reality by arguing that there is a separation of the mind from that reality and that the "evidence" is created by the mind rather than being separate and inherent to that reality. But this idea presupposes
a super or "ultimate" reality. The one in which the mind exists.
There is no way to prove the existance of that presupposed ultimate reality since we cannot percieve it directly with our mind.
That's why they can't grasp or understand "proof" and "evidence"
because from their perspective it has no meaning, it's not "real".

In other words, they just substitue one reality for another.
The reality of the "mind" is more "real" than the "physical" reality.
But again this is based on assumptions.

So pick your assumption: Matter is derived from mind which exists in an ultimate reality. (but then if you buy that then the mind is
made up of whatever the ultimate reality is made up of) Or, the mind is derived from matter and does not require an extreaneous
reality in which to exist.

The latter is the one I subscribe to. One reason is that it is perceptible to my senses and can be verified by the separate observation of another mind and that we can agree on that observation (more or less). I do not subscribe to the former because I have no reason to accept the existance of an ultimate
reality that I cannot percieve. I cannot verify the existance of an ultimate reality because there is no perception of it for me to compare with another mind's perception. otherwise how would i know that the assumption has merit?

So when I ask for "evidence" of your belief. I am asking how can I verify your assumptions so that other minds would independently come to the same conclusions.

 

[Hal 2001]

Re: Please don't hit me

"If god does not exist, then life is meaningless.
But life has meaning
Therefore god exists"

Unfortunately you can't counter "but life is meaningless, therefore god doesn't exist" because that's not a valid inference. But you can confound the person making the argument by accepting the meaninglessness of life, or asking them to prove that life has meaning - equally as difficult as demonstrating the existence of god, I guess.

Yeah, it's annoying.

Or you could ask Cthulhu to devour them.

Hmmm the magic of circular reasoning :

God exists because life has meaning
Life has meaning because god Exists

Try to beat it , I feel good and happy now.


mss Hal