ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING!

Reply
Old 4th November 2017, 03:19 PM   #161
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 78,846
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
That was not what I was asked, and that is not the subject of the thread.

The subject of the thread was and is the execrable you tube video by a fanatical anti-theist character who calls himself the Redneck Atheist.

..snip..
(Just as a FYI - it is "YouTube" not "you tube".)

There is no way I am going to listen to that entire video but the sections I dropped into were definitely using descriptions of god from the Christian bible - which describes god in both the OT and NT.

If you wish to argue the descriptions in the puerile video are wrong or inaccurate you can't do so by simply dismissing the descriptions because they appear in the OT because the vast majority of the Christian denominations say the god of the old testament is the same god as in the NT.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you

Last edited by Darat; 4th November 2017 at 03:20 PM. Reason: a t! for goodness sake
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 03:37 PM   #162
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,612
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Cogent ones which address the points at hand would be a start.
No dodging the question.

You claim to be an Atheist. Give us all a real word actual example of one of these "cogent" arguments you are wanting.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.

Last edited by smartcooky; 4th November 2017 at 04:04 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 03:44 PM   #163
Thor 2
Master Poster
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 2,941
Originally Posted by Egg View Post
I can see how this follows, but then what is the reason to engage in mockery and calling people idiots?

The stories of the Bible are clearly idiotic but that doesn't mean that those who believe them are idiots - just indoctrinated.

The telling of these stories in modern vernacular, somehow brings them into better focus I think, and may just help the faithful to see more clearly, how absurd the stories are. Perhaps it may be more effective with those on the brink, rather than fully immersed in the faith, and also those like the average Catholic, who just don't know much of the Bible.

That being said, after listening to most of the video linked in the OP, I think it could have been done better. The language was just a little to colourful perhaps and some of the lines like "The next thing you know." overused to the point where they were tedious to hear.
__________________
There are billions of gods. One or more in the mind of every theist.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 05:25 PM   #164
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,551
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
No dodging the question.
This seems a somewhat hypocritical statement to make after your last few posts.

Quote:
You claim to be an Atheist. Give us all a real word actual example of one of these "cogent" arguments you are wanting.
A few questions, first:

Why? It reads to me like you're trying to formulate a "gotcha". Given that, my second question would be why should I? I don't believe the question is being asked in good faith, and I don't believe any answer I give will be given honest consideration. Going by your track record so far in this thread I believe it will either be twisted into a straw man, or ignored - either entirely or by you changing the subject under the pretence of addressing what I said.

The question I've kept asking throughout this thread is what are you trying to achieve? I ask that question of you again - what are you trying to achieve with this line of questioning? What do you envision the optimal outcome of asking this question will be? What are you actually hoping will happen?

Furthermore to all of that - what am I likely to achieve by indulging you? In what way is this likely to benefit me, or anybody reading this thread? Is likely to have a positive outcome for anybody? I believe not, and will take some convincing that it can.

Assuming for the sake of argument that you do convince me that you're asking in good faith and that this could be the beginning of meaningful, productive dialogue, what, exactly, are you asking me to provide a counter-argument to? You haven't actually asked me a specific question, just issued a vague instruction that could seemingly be filled by a link to any one of hundreds of simple guides on how to construct an argument. So what are you actually asking me to argue?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 05:27 PM   #165
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,551
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
The telling of these stories in modern vernacular, somehow brings them into better focus I think, and may just help the faithful to see more clearly, how absurd the stories are. Perhaps it may be more effective with those on the brink, rather than fully immersed in the faith, and also those like the average Catholic, who just don't know much of the Bible.
This seems to me to be an argument for retelling Bible stories in contemporary language, rather than an argument for mocking them and those who believe them.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 05:28 PM   #166
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,904
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
(Just as a FYI - it is "YouTube" not "you tube".)

There is no way I am going to listen to that entire video but the sections I dropped into were definitely using descriptions of god from the Christian bible - which describes god in both the OT and NT.

If you wish to argue the descriptions in the puerile video are wrong or inaccurate you can't do so by simply dismissing the descriptions because they appear in the OT because the vast majority of the Christian denominations say the god of the old testament is the same god as in the NT.
I am arguing that the the video is puerile.
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 05:49 PM   #167
Thor 2
Master Poster
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 2,941
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
This seems to me to be an argument for retelling Bible stories in contemporary language, rather than an argument for mocking them and those who believe them.

Lets not conflate mocking stories and mocking those who believe in them. As I said ^:

Quote:
The stories of the Bible are clearly idiotic but that doesn't mean that those who believe them are idiots - just indoctrinated.
I have read a good deal of this thread and haven't seen much of the - "mocking them and those who believe them."
__________________
There are billions of gods. One or more in the mind of every theist.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 05:56 PM   #168
Thor 2
Master Poster
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 2,941
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I am arguing that the the video is puerile.

Well yes I sort of agree with you here, however given that the stories being recounted from the Bible are puerile also, it would be a challenge to produce something that wasn't ..... no?
__________________
There are billions of gods. One or more in the mind of every theist.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 06:04 PM   #169
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,612
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
This seems a somewhat hypocritical statement to make after your last few posts.



A few questions, first:

Why? It reads to me like you're trying to formulate a "gotcha". Given that, my second question would be why should I? I don't believe the question is being asked in good faith, and I don't believe any answer I give will be given honest consideration. Going by your track record so far in this thread I believe it will either be twisted into a straw man, or ignored - either entirely or by you changing the subject under the pretence of addressing what I said.

The question I've kept asking throughout this thread is what are you trying to achieve? I ask that question of you again - what are you trying to achieve with this line of questioning? What do you envision the optimal outcome of asking this question will be? What are you actually hoping will happen?

Furthermore to all of that - what am I likely to achieve by indulging you? In what way is this likely to benefit me, or anybody reading this thread? Is likely to have a positive outcome for anybody? I believe not, and will take some convincing that it can.

Assuming for the sake of argument that you do convince me that you're asking in good faith and that this could be the beginning of meaningful, productive dialogue, what, exactly, are you asking me to provide a counter-argument to? You haven't actually asked me a specific question, just issued a vague instruction that could seemingly be filled by a link to any one of hundreds of simple guides on how to construct an argument. So what are you actually asking me to argue?
Right, so you won't state a clear example of what you expect

So much for honest debate.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 06:19 PM   #170
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,551
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Lets not conflate mocking stories and mocking those who believe in them. As I said ^:



I have read a good deal of this thread and haven't seen much of the - "mocking them and those who believe them."
Well, leaving aside the question of whether or not using terms like "Sky Daddy Bleevers" is mocking people, with religion the question becomes a little fuzzier, anyway.

If you can accept that people genuinely believe in God, as they claim to, then they consider him to be as real as anybody they've met. Furthermore, they love him. The very term "sky daddy" acknowledges the relationship that these people perceive themselves to have with God.

Now, if you entered in to a conversation with someone and in that conversation you began to mock their actual parents, I think it would be reasonable to consider it likely that that person would feel personally insulted. I think it would be reasonable to consider it likely that that person may get defensive. I think it would be reasonable to consider it unlikely that that person would be open to much in the way of persuasion from the things that you are saying.

This isn't to say that you shouldn't criticise people's parents. It isn't to say that you shouldn't contradict what people believe about their parents. But it is to say that if your actual goal is to have a productive conversation of any kind, especially if you're looking to change someone's mind about their parents, that perhaps mockery isn't the best approach.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 06:22 PM   #171
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,551
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Right, so you won't state a clear example of what you expect.
On the contrary, I stated that I will answer your request if you can demonstrate that it's being asked in good faith and if you'll clarify and specify what, exactly, you're asking.

But your reply is along the lines that I was expecting and you have confirmed for me that you were trying to engineer a "gotcha" rather than making a genuine request in good faith. So thank you.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

Last edited by Squeegee Beckenheim; 4th November 2017 at 06:26 PM.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 06:54 PM   #172
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,063
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Cogent ones which address the points at hand would be a start.
Wouldn't it be “childish” for a mentally healthy, educated adult to believe that the fantasy “Father Christmas” character is actually real? In such a circumstance, would you object to “Father Christmas” being described as being “Daddy Christmas” to make the cogent point of "childishness"?

Given there’s no more credible evidence that a “Heavenly Father” is any more actually real than a "Father Christmas", then isn't it appropriate to use the term “Sky Daddy” to make the cogent point that such a belief is equally “childish”?
__________________
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 4th November 2017 at 07:04 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 07:05 PM   #173
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,551
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Wouldn't it be “childish” for a mentally healthy, educated adult to believe that the fantasy “Santa” character is actually real? In such a circumstance, would you object to “Father Christmas” being described as being “Daddy Christmas” to make the cogent point of "childishness"?

Given there’s no more credible evidence that a “Heavenly Father” is any more actually real than a "Santa", then isn't it appropriate to use the term “Sky Daddy” to make the cogent point that such a belief is equally “childish”?
I come back, once again, to the question of what the person speaking or writing such a term is attempting to achieve. If it's truly, as has been claimed in this thread, to attempt to engage in honest debate or to perhaps change minds (even those of lurkers, if not those being directly addressed), then I would question whether such an approach was the most likely to succeed. That applies equally to God, Santa, or indeed any other belief or opinion you'd care to name.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

Last edited by Squeegee Beckenheim; 4th November 2017 at 07:06 PM.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 07:17 PM   #174
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,063
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I come back, once again, to the question of what the person speaking or writing such a term is attempting to achieve. If it's truly, as has been claimed in this thread, to attempt to engage in honest debate or to perhaps change minds (even those of lurkers, if not those being directly addressed), then I would question whether such an approach was the most likely to succeed. That applies equally to God, Santa, or indeed any other belief or opinion you'd care to name.
What’s “dishonest” about using childish words to highlight that a belief is essentially childish? Seems to me you conflate “honest” and “nice”.
__________________
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 07:27 PM   #175
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,904
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
What’s “dishonest” about using childish words to highlight that a belief is essentially childish? Seems to me you conflate “honest” and “nice”.
It is dishonest when someone using childish words pretends that they are engaging in honest debate or discussion.

But go ahead and use them all you want, i am certainly not going to think any less of someone continuing to do so.
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 07:29 PM   #176
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,063
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
It is dishonest when someone using childish words pretends that they are engaging in honest debate or discussion.

But go ahead and use them all you want, i am certainly not going to think any less of someone continuing to do so.
Seems you also conflate “honest” and “nice”.

Calling a spade a spade is being honest. Calling a spade a shovel because someone has emotional issues with the word “spade” is being dishonestly “nice”.
__________________
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 4th November 2017 at 07:31 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 07:42 PM   #177
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,551
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
What’s “dishonest” about using childish words to highlight that a belief is essentially childish? Seems to me you conflate “honest” and “nice”.
At this point I'm starting to wonder if there's some kind of filter on the internet where the words I'm typing and the words that appear on my screen when I read them back get transformed into other words by the time they reach other people's computers, because it seems that nobody is actually replying to the things that I'm saying. I really hate the tedious way that online debates can quickly turn into constantly having to refer people back to things that you've already posted, but I'll indulge in it this once just to hopefully get at least one person to address the things I'm saying, rather than making up things that are easier to argue against.

I did not say that there was anything dishonest about using childish words to highlight anything. I said that if someone, in communication with another human being, has the intention of entering into honest debate with that human being, or of potentially persuading other observing human beings who may be less sure in their beliefs, then using such terms may not be the optimal approach to achieving that goal. As such, anybody who does use such terms and who does have those goals might be wise to consider whether another approach might be more likely to achieve what they want to achieve.

The key issue - as I've said several times - is what the person communicating is hoping to achieve with that communication. What are they hoping to achieve, and what is most likely to enable them to achieve that.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 07:43 PM   #178
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,058
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Then why did you frame this video as being a rebuttal to a campaign to get the Bible taught in schools?
Because the video is a rebuttal to a campaign to get the bible taught in schools. Not a fight.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Yet now your claim is that this isn't even a fight, let alone a war, which makes your characterisation of this video as a "hand-grenade" even less apt.
Not less apt to anyone who understands the analogy and exactly which of your assertions the analogy was rebutting.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I don't think you've thought your position on this through at all.
That's because you don't understand the analogy and exactly which of your assertions the analogy was rebutting.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Then I was correct in saying that the only point in the video that even mentions it is half a sentence at the beginning, and that it doesn't do more than simply mention it in passing. Thank you, I did think you were misrepresenting the video, and now you've confirmed that I haven't actually missed anything salient to this particular claim of yours.
The odious little kernels of your falsehoods have been highlighted in disdainful red. Rebuttal follows.

The redneck's last sentence of the video: "Seriously, you people want to have this stuff taught in our schools, to our children? No thanks, man!"

And that was the next sentence after the one you used for a weak cherry pick.
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump

Last edited by Toontown; 4th November 2017 at 08:10 PM.
Toontown is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 07:45 PM   #179
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,904
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Seems you also conflate “honest” and “nice”.

Calling a spade a spade is being honest. Calling a spade a shovel because someone has emotional issues with the word “spade” is being dishonestly “nice”.
Did you read anything you just wrote? One is not engaging in honest debate where one believes that using childish mocking terms to reinforce their beliefs.

I personally am thrilled when people use those terms! It means they have nothing original to say, and no vocabulary to say it even if they had.
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 08:03 PM   #180
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,500
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Yes.

SW, SW, SW!



When I have tried everything else I can think of, playing the poster at their own game seems like its all there is left!



Atheists need no evidence for the non-existence of gods because the burden of proof is on the believers. When the believer won't provide evidence to support their belief, there is nothing to debate.



Its a last resort when believers refuse to debate honestly. Mockery is a legitimate tactic to goad the dishonest into action. Some are immune to this tactic, some are not.
Depends on what kind of atheist you are. If you are asserting a positive position that reality is such that there are no god(s) (I believe that is your position), the burden of proof is on you to show we live in such a reality.

The default position is weak atheism (agnosticism).
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 08:05 PM   #181
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,500
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
People other than StackOverflow having replied to my posts does not imply that StackOverflow's post addressed anything I said.

I despair, I really do. I honestly hope that there are still atheists left on this board who are able to formulate better arguments than I've seen over the last couple of weeks. If not then this board is in a far sorrier state than I'd feared.
This board is on its last legs.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 08:08 PM   #182
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,058
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I personally am thrilled when people use those terms! It means they have nothing original to say, and no vocabulary to say it even if they had.
Why do you want people to have nothing original to say, and no vocabulary to say it?

That's the second time you've said that in this thread, BTW.
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump
Toontown is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 08:36 PM   #183
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,904
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
Why do you want people to have nothing original to say, and no vocabulary to say it?

That's the second time you've said that in this thread, BTW.
Golly, I don’t make them use those silly terms.
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 09:04 PM   #184
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,612
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Then why did you frame this video as being a rebuttal to a campaign to get the Bible taught in schools?
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
Because the video is a rebuttal to a campaign to get the bible taught in schools. Not a fight
Exactly!

If he had bothered actually look at the video he is criticising and discussing (and its clear now that he hasn't), he would have heard the narrator say, in the first 20 seconds....

"Mark Burnett and his wife have been going around, talking about how they want this stuff taught to our kids in public schools"

....and in the last 20 seconds....

"Seriously, you want to have this stuff taught in our schools to our children? No thanks man!"

So, Squeegee Beckenham next time you want to come shuffling into a debate about a video, maybe you could avail yourself of the opportunity to actually watch the whole video in question, then you will be able to proceed from a position of at least knowing something about what you are talking about.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 09:15 PM   #185
Thor 2
Master Poster
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 2,941
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Depends on what kind of atheist you are. If you are asserting a positive position that reality is such that there are no god(s) (I believe that is your position), the burden of proof is on you to show we live in such a reality.

The default position is weak atheism (agnosticism).

How many times must this argument be pummelled to death before it stops rising from the dead to irritate us once again?

A true skeptic atheist will not say "There is definitely no god" because this cannot be proven. This does not define us as "weak atheist" just realistic atheist. As such we do not have the burden of proof thrust back on us to prove the "non existence" of any god you choose to name.

How can you possibly determine that smart cooky is saying there are positively no gods from what he posted?
__________________
There are billions of gods. One or more in the mind of every theist.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 09:21 PM   #186
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,612
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Depends on what kind of atheist you are. If you are asserting a positive position that reality is such that there are no god(s) (I believe that is your position), the burden of proof is on you to show we live in such a reality.

The default position is weak atheism (agnosticism).
Nice try but no, I claim the negative position... that there is no evidence of the existence of gods. The burden of proof is on the believers to prove their gods exist...

The default position is that there are no gods.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.

Last edited by smartcooky; 4th November 2017 at 09:38 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 09:41 PM   #187
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,063
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
At this point I'm starting to wonder if there's some kind of filter on the internet where the words I'm typing and the words that appear on my screen when I read them back get transformed into other words by the time they reach other people's computers, because it seems that nobody is actually replying to the things that I'm saying. I really hate the tedious way that online debates can quickly turn into constantly having to refer people back to things that you've already posted, but I'll indulge in it this once just to hopefully get at least one person to address the things I'm saying, rather than making up things that are easier to argue against.

I did not say that there was anything dishonest about using childish words to highlight anything. I said that if someone, in communication with another human being, has the intention of entering into honest debate with that human being, or of potentially persuading other observing human beings who may be less sure in their beliefs, then using such terms may not be the optimal approach to achieving that goal. As such, anybody who does use such terms and who does have those goals might be wise to consider whether another approach might be more likely to achieve what they want to achieve.

The key issue - as I've said several times - is what the person communicating is hoping to achieve with that communication. What are they hoping to achieve, and what is most likely to enable them to achieve that.
Now it seems you conflate “honest” and “optimal” (or at least move the goal posts from one to the other).

Are you after an honest debate or an optimal debate? (one doesn’t necessarily facilitate the other)

If you’re after an honest debate then I suggest all parties telling the truth might be the obvious way to achieve that end. As you say, there’s nothing dishonest about using childish words to highlight that a belief is childish. Using “Sky Daddy” in place of “Heavenly Father” is therefore not engaging in dishonest debate.

If you’re after an optimal debate (as in most effectively persuading people to question or abandon their paranormal beliefs), then I suggest that debating dishonestly might be the most optimal way to achieve this end. “Tell’em what they wanna hear. There’s a sucker born every minute”.

It seems to me what you’re really after a “nice” debate in which no side offends the other. Perhaps you might like to suggest to Christians that they shouldn’t offend and insult atheists by telling them they’re all nasty, evil sinners that’re going to suffer an eternity in hell with much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Surely you must agree "Sky Daddy" is tame by comparison.
__________________
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 4th November 2017 at 09:42 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 09:49 PM   #188
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,500
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Nice try but no, I claim the negative position... that there is no evidence of the existence of gods. The burden of proof is on the believers to prove their gods exist...
Agreed.

Quote:
The default position is that there are no gods.
No.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 09:52 PM   #189
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,500
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
How many times must this argument be pummelled to death before it stops rising from the dead to irritate us once again?

A true skeptic atheist will not say "There is definitely no god" because this cannot be proven. This does not define us as "weak atheist" just realistic atheist. As such we do not have the burden of proof thrust back on us to prove the "non existence" of any god you choose to name.

How can you possibly determine that smart cooky is saying there are positively no gods from what he posted?
Yes, it does define you as "weak atheist". The term is not a pejorative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negati...sitive_atheism
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 10:31 PM   #190
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,063
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post

No.
The default position is not that there are gods.
__________________
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 10:46 PM   #191
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,500
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
The default position is not that there are gods.
That can be parsed different ways:

The default position is: not that there are gods
or
The default position is not: that there are gods.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 11:10 PM   #192
Thor 2
Master Poster
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 2,941
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Yes, it does define you as "weak atheist". The term is not a pejorative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negati...sitive_atheism

This is nonsense. I am a realistic atheist because I don't have any proof that a god of any identity does not exist. That quote from wiki is all over the place also.

One god I am certain does not exist is the Abrahamic one. He is clearly a man made one - which is obvious because he is such a dick.
__________________
There are billions of gods. One or more in the mind of every theist.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 11:19 PM   #193
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,500
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
This is nonsense. I am a realistic atheist because I don't have any proof that a god of any identity does not exist. That quote from wiki is all over the place also.

One god I am certain does not exist is the Abrahamic one. He is clearly a man made one - which is obvious because he is such a dick.
It's very clear.

"Q: What's the difference between a "weak atheist" and a "strong atheist"?

A: A weak atheist is one in whom no god-belief is present. A weak atheist makes no claims about the general existence of a god or gods, he or she simply has no belief in any them.

A strong atheist, on the other hand, not only has no god-belief, but also makes a positive assertion that in fact there are no gods at all.
"
http://www.atheistfaq.com/2008/02/wh...k-atheist.html
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 11:55 PM   #194
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 663
Originally Posted by StackOverflow View Post
Originally Posted by GDon
I would. I think many people would. It might be aliens, for example.

Why would you conclude that voices in the head -- even shared by everyone on earth -- is proof for God's existence?
LOL, just LOL. ALIENS? You realize that aliens are in the same ballpark as god? No signs of them existing.
Heck, it's YOUR scenario.

God is usually defined as omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Unless your definition of "God" is limited to "a being who can put its voice into billions of head", tell me why your scenario would lead you to being unable to deny the existence of God? There is a lack of logic there.

Last edited by GDon; 4th November 2017 at 11:59 PM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 12:04 AM   #195
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,886
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
On the contrary, I stated that I will answer your request if you can demonstrate that it's being asked in good faith and if you'll clarify and specify what, exactly, you're asking.

But your reply is along the lines that I was expecting and you have confirmed for me that you were trying to engineer a "gotcha" rather than making a genuine request in good faith. So thank you.
Your expectations are irrelevant. Can you make a cogent argument for any god?

If you can, you will be the first to ever do so. Have a Pulitzer and a Nobel prize.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 12:10 AM   #196
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,886
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Heck, it's YOUR scenario.

God is usually defined as omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Unless your definition of "God" is limited to "a being who can put its voice into billions of head", tell me why your scenario would lead you to being unable to deny the existence of God? There is a lack of logic there.
Nicely missing the point and creating a strawman.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 01:38 AM   #197
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 78,846
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I am arguing that the the video is puerile.
That's fine, I thought you were arguing against the descriptions used because they were found in the OT not simply the style of the video.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 01:43 AM   #198
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 78,846
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Well, leaving aside the question of whether or not using terms like "Sky Daddy Bleevers" is mocking people, with religion the question becomes a little fuzzier, anyway.

If you can accept that people genuinely believe in God, as they claim to, then they consider him to be as real as anybody they've met. Furthermore, they love him. The very term "sky daddy" acknowledges the relationship that these people perceive themselves to have with God.

Now, if you entered in to a conversation with someone and in that conversation you began to mock their actual parents, I think it would be reasonable to consider it likely that that person would feel personally insulted. I think it would be reasonable to consider it likely that that person may get defensive. I think it would be reasonable to consider it unlikely that that person would be open to much in the way of persuasion from the things that you are saying.

This isn't to say that you shouldn't criticise people's parents. It isn't to say that you shouldn't contradict what people believe about their parents. But it is to say that if your actual goal is to have a productive conversation of any kind, especially if you're looking to change someone's mind about their parents, that perhaps mockery isn't the best approach.
People are different, there is no one way of persuasion that is right for everyone, it may be the type of video that is the subject of this thread only "works" with 0.5% of people but that would still make it effective in some cases.

I've stated the video is puerile but that doesn't mean I can't recognise that it may be an appropriate way to reach some people.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 01:49 AM   #199
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 78,846
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Depends on what kind of atheist you are. If you are asserting a positive position that reality is such that there are no god(s) (I believe that is your position), the burden of proof is on you to show we live in such a reality.

The default position is weak atheism (agnosticism).
That only makes sense if you redefine the word God to simply mean "something that could exist" which is not how the word is used in the real world. For instance I know that Zeus does not exist because we know what characteristics that God is meant to have.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 01:55 AM   #200
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 78,846
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
How many times must this argument be pummelled to death before it stops rising from the dead to irritate us once again?

A true skeptic atheist will not say "There is definitely no god" because this cannot be proven. This does not define us as "weak atheist" just realistic atheist. As such we do not have the burden of proof thrust back on us to prove the "non existence" of any god you choose to name.

How can you possibly determine that smart cooky is saying there are positively no gods from what he posted?
As I said that only makes any kind of sense if one redefines the word god to simply mean "something that could exist". Which makes it pretty much a useless statement as of course there are billions of things that could exist.

God as defined by actual religions does not exist.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:22 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.