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 5th November 2017, 04:33 AM   #201
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,553
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.
Is a rebuttal not, by definition, in opposition to the thing that it is rebutting? Is a rebuttal therefore not, by definition, fighting the thing that it is rebutting?

Quote:
Not less apt to anyone who understands the analogy and exactly which of your assertions the analogy was rebutting.



That's because you don't understand the analogy and exactly which of your assertions the analogy was rebutting.
Then please clarify.

Quote:
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.
You're right, my apologies. There is indeed one sentence that I had overlooked which, like the half sentence I hadn't overlooked, also only mentions but does not actually address the issue of the Bible being taught in public schools.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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, 04:35 AM   #202
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,553
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
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.
I actually had seen that sentence. But since it was very brief and said nothing substantive I had overlooked it. That I may have missed something is why I asked to be directed to anything relevant. It seems that that is the best there is.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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, 04:38 AM   #203
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,553
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
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.
Well, nobody can say that I didn't try. I explained my position carefully, unambiguously, and in as much detail as I could - not for the first time - and even made sure I did so in a different way using different language to the other times I had done so. And I get back another post just full of replies to things that I didn't say, and addressing points I didn't make and do not believe.

I really do despair that this is seemingly the best this board can manage these days.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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, 04:42 AM   #204
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,553
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
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.
Not only does this post make no sense directed at me, or following on from the exchange with smartcooky that it was part of, but in the last few days you and I have had an exchange in this very thread in which it was explained to you why directing a post such as this at me would make no sense and you indicated that you'd taken that information on board.

Once more I'm left despairing.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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, 04:44 AM   #205
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,553
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
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.
If we assume for the sake of argument that everything you're saying here is true, how is this a counter-argument to anything I've said?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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, 04:59 AM   #206
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,652
Mod WarningA digression on the vices of certain posters has been moved to AAH. This is an as-of-yet friendly reminder of rule 11 and rule 12. The topic is not each other.
Posted By:TubbaBlubba
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy

Last edited by TubbaBlubba; 5th November 2017 at 05:01 AM.
TubbaBlubba 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 5th November 2017, 06:18 AM   #207
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,064
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
You're right, my apologies. There is indeed one sentence that I had overlooked which, like the half sentence I hadn't overlooked, also only mentions but does not actually address the issue of the Bible being taught in public schools.
Every sentence in the entire video addresses the issue of the bible being taught in public schools, by collectively exposing the bible as utter hogwash.

And you're still clinging to the "half sentence" falsehood.
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump

Last edited by Toontown; 5th November 2017 at 06:30 AM.
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 5th November 2017, 06:41 AM   #208
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,064
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Not only does this post make no sense directed at me, or following on from the exchange with smartcooky that it was part of, but in the last few days you and I have had an exchange in this very thread in which it was explained to you why directing a post such as this at me would make no sense and you indicated that you'd taken that information on board.

Once more I'm left despairing.
You've been calling for cogent arguments and despairing over our alleged inability to present them. It wouldn't hurt your case to show us how it's done, in a way a Christian might find sufficiently compelling to suppress the standard, ubiquitous stonewalling response.
__________________
"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 5th November 2017, 07:11 AM   #209
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,553
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
Every sentence in the entire video addresses the issue of the bible being taught in public schools, by collectively exposing the bible as utter hogwash.
Is any video which "expos[es] the bible as utter hogwash" addressing that issue?

Quote:
And you're still clinging to the "half sentence" falsehood.
Straw man.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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, 07:12 AM   #210
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,553
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
You've been calling for cogent arguments and despairing over our alleged inability to present them. It wouldn't hurt your case to show us how it's done, in a way a Christian might find sufficiently compelling to suppress the standard, ubiquitous stonewalling response.
I refer you back to my previous responses to this request.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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, 08:24 AM   #211
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,064
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Is any video which "expos[es] the bible as utter hogwash" addressing that issue?
A video that begins and ends with that issue, and attacks the proposed hogwash throughout, is a prime candidate for a video that is addressing that issue.

I thought I felt a bump. Was that another one of your cogent arguments?
__________________
"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 5th November 2017, 08:42 AM   #212
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,553
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
A video that begins and ends with that issue, and attacks the proposed hogwash throughout, is a prime candidate for a video that is addressing that issue.
Do you see any distinction between mentioning an issue and addressing an issue?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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, 08:53 AM   #213
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,064
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
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.

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?
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Right, so you won't state a clear example of what you expect

So much for honest debate.
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.
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
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.
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Not only does this post make no sense directed at me, or following on from the exchange with smartcooky that it was part of, but in the last few days you and I have had an exchange in this very thread in which it was explained to you why directing a post such as this at me would make no sense and you indicated that you'd taken that information on board.

Once more I'm left despairing.
Question: rather than being left despairing, why not just present the requested demo cogent argument? Nobody's going to make a "gotcha" out of one of those.

But instead, you walked right into your own self-engineered "gotcha", then complained about having been gotten, then continued to stonewall, then expressed despair.

Very "Christiany" form of argumentation. You're probably winning over lots of Christian lurkers. Keep up the good work.
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump

Last edited by Toontown; 5th November 2017 at 08:55 AM.
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 5th November 2017, 09:04 AM   #214
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,064
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Do you see any distinction between mentioning an issue and addressing an issue?
Do you see a distinction between "mentioning" a proposal and beginning with a stated intention to "take a look" at the proposal, then taking a long look the subject matter of the proposal, then ending with a rejection of the proposal?

Do you see the distinction between "honest debate" and asserting that a proposal wasn't addressed because you personally dislike the manner in which the proposal was addressed?
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump

Last edited by Toontown; 5th November 2017 at 09:06 AM.
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 5th November 2017, 09:06 AM   #215
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,553
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
Question: rather than being left despairing, why not just present the requested demo cogent argument?
I refer you back to my previous replies.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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, 09:08 AM   #216
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,553
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
Do you see a distinction between "mentioning" a proposal and beginning with a stated intention to "take a look" at the proposal, then taking a long look the subject matter of the proposal, then ending with a rejection of the proposal?
Are you asserting that there is more discussion in the video of the Bible being taught in schools than the half sentence at the beginning and the sentence at the end? If so, please direct me to the relevant time stamps. If not, could you please answer my question?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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, 09:29 AM   #217
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,510
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
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.
There are arguments for god(s) of course. My favorite references the fine-tuning problem. It's short:

Sandra Faber is an atheist cosmologist.

Faber declared that there were only two possible explanations for fine-tuning. “One is that there is a God and that God made it that way,” she said. But for Faber, an atheist, divine intervention is not the answer.

The only other approach that makes any sense is to argue that there really is an infinite, or a very big, ensemble of universes out there and we are in one,” she said.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/p...uned-for-life/

There is much evidence for god as there is for a sufficiently large multiverse that explains away the fine-tuning problem. That is to say the evidence for either is scant. So, if Faber is right (there's no reason to assume she's not), and it's either god or a large enough multiverse, the theist is on the same epistemological ground as the scientist who asserts there are an infinite/near infinite number of universes. Both are expressing a faith-based view.

But the theist can go a little further. They can point to the universality of spiritual experience and claim god is a better candidate to explain that than a very large multiverse. They can also claim that god is a better candidate than the universe for something that has eternally existed or contains the cause of its existence within itself.
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 5th November 2017, 10:37 AM   #218
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,553
There's another way I've been looking at this, too. If I'm to assume, for the sake of argument, that this video is a "rebuttal" (but not part of a "fight") against the idea of the Bible being taught in schools, and that the argument it is making is that these stories are "utter hogwash"...then isn't that just an argument from incredulity?

The argument appears to be "this is ridiculous, therefore it shouldn't be taught in schools". Is that not the same argument that Creationists make against evolution? The following video, for example, doesn't mention schools, but it presents the argument that the idea of evolution is "stupid":

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


I can see two counter-arguments to this, so I'll address both ahead of time. The first is that evolution has independent, empirical evidence that supports it. This is true. Evolution is, in fact, one of the best-supported theories in science. But that is not the argument that Dusty is making. He doesn't refer to a lack of evidence for the Bible stories. He doesn't discuss their historicity (in fact, the suggestion of doing so was laughed at earlier in the thread). No, his entire argument is that they are ridiculous. So on that level, the two videos are the same.

The second is that the video I just posted doesn't accurately portray the theory of evolution. This is true. Which makes the question of whether Dusty accurately portrays the contents of the Bible salient. The answer is no, he doesn't. For example, his description of why God decided to destroy Sodom is this:

Quote:
They're having a bit too much fun over there. There's sex, drugs, rock n' roll and I can't have with people having that much fun so I'm gonna kill them all.
What does the Bible say is the reason for the city's destruction? There are several passages, but I'm going to quote just one, from Paul's Epistle to the Romans:

Quote:
They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.
Unless Dusty is actually of the opinion that murder is "fun", then he is misrepresenting the Bible in order to make his point.

I think you can argue a matter of degree with how much misrepresentation is going on, but I don't think you can argue that it's not happening in either video.

You could also make the argument, I suppose, that Dusty isn't retelling the Bible, but retelling the TV series he's talking about. But, given that I've been criticised for commenting on the video in the OP without having watched all of it, how many people reading this thread can say that they have watched the TV series he's talking about? I'd be prepared to wager that the answer is "not many, if any".

So, if we're genuinely supposed to take this video seriously as an argument, as a rebuttal, as a "hand grenade" (although not one that's being used in any kind of "fight" or "war"), then isn't it, in fact, a very poor argument? Isn't it just one big logical fallacy?

I ask anybody who believes this video to be an actual argument to ask themselves whether they would honestly accept the argument "this seems silly to me, therefore it's not true" if it were presented to support a conclusion that they didn't already agree with.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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, 10:47 AM   #219
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,394
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I am arguing that the the video is puerile.
I think few people will seriously contest that. The point that many make is that, in spite of the puerile form, it actually addresses valid points. Whether you ant to address those is, obviously, your choice.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans 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, 11:01 AM   #220
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,956
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
I think few people will seriously contest that. The point that many make is that, in spite of the puerile form, it actually addresses valid points. Whether you ant to address those is, obviously, your choice.

Hans
Hell, that nonsense video could have the secret to turning Panther piss into gasoline, but I ain’t gonna sift through 35minutes of **** to find the shiny penny at the bottom.
__________________
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 5th November 2017, 11:06 AM   #221
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,891
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Quote:
They're having a bit too much fun over there. There's sex, drugs, rock n' roll and I can't have with people having that much fun so I'm gonna kill them all.
What does the Bible say is the reason for the city's destruction? There are several passages, but I'm going to quote just one, from Paul's Epistle to the Romans:

Quote:
They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.
So sex, drugs and rock n' roll it is then. Nice job citing Paul the eye-witness. He was there, right?

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Unless Dusty is actually of the opinion that murder is "fun", then he is misrepresenting the Bible in order to make his point.
"Fun"? Perhaps not "fun", but certainly a triviality unworthy of any concern and to be encouraged casually at every turn if the bible is to be believed.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I think you can argue a matter of degree with how much misrepresentation is going on, but I don't think you can argue that it's not happening in either video.
Except we can all read what is actually in the bible. The bible is like some mythical dwarf, nasty, brutish and short. Definitely not the vague nice little Disney versions that christians like to foist upon the unwary.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
You could also make the argument, I suppose, that Dusty isn't retelling the Bible, but retelling the TV series he's talking about. But, given that I've been criticised for commenting on the video in the OP without having watched all of it, how many people reading this thread can say that they have watched the TV series he's talking about? I'd be prepared to wager that the answer is "not many, if any".
I live in no TV-land.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
So, if we're genuinely supposed to take this video seriously as an argument, as a rebuttal, as a "hand grenade" (although not one that's being used in any kind of "fight" or "war"), then isn't it, in fact, a very poor argument? Isn't it just one big logical fallacy?
Nope. It is a warts and all paraphrasis of what the bible actually says. Good helping of hyperbole, true. But still largely accurate.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I ask anybody who believes this video to be an actual argument to ask themselves whether they would honestly accept the argument "this seems silly to me, therefore it's not true" if it were presented to support a conclusion that they didn't already agree with.
In that case, how much serious consideration have you given to talking snakes, talking donkeys, unicorns and dragons? Do they seem silly to you? Or do you spend time pondering whether or not they might possibly be true. Do you keep slaves? Or did you immediately knee-jerk into the unwarranted position that slavery is immoral without due consideration for the merits of slavery and the fact that the bible mandates it? How about gender equality? Did you laboriously ponder the bible idea that women are merely property for a long time? How about the Zombie Apocalypse in Jerusalem that nobody noticed? Think that merits serious consideration? What about circumcision? Bible god doesn't just mandate that, he actually collects the foreskins into great steaming piles. This certainly warrants some careful consideration as to it's merits, no? Human sacrifice. Are you all good with that? The bible is. What about genocide? Should we be contemplating the morality of that?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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 5th November 2017, 11:09 AM   #222
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,620
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
Every sentence in the entire video addresses the issue of the bible being taught in public schools, by collectively exposing the bible as utter hogwash.

And you're still clinging to the "half sentence" falsehood.

THIS

The opening sentence states the rebuttal, the closing statement concludes it, and everything in between is the evidence of why it should not be taught in public schools... .i.e. because the bible (both the OT and the NT) and everything they contain, is utter tripe.
__________________
► 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 5th November 2017, 11:13 AM   #223
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,620
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I refer you back to my previous replies.

Translation: You are going to continue to dodge the question.

What are you afraid of?
__________________
► 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 5th November 2017, 11:17 AM   #224
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,620
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
There are arguments for god(s) of course. My favorite references the fine-tuning problem. It's short:

Sandra Faber is an atheist cosmologist.

Faber declared that there were only two possible explanations for fine-tuning. “One is that there is a God and that God made it that way,” she said. But for Faber, an atheist, divine intervention is not the answer.

The only other approach that makes any sense is to argue that there really is an infinite, or a very big, ensemble of universes out there and we are in one,” she said.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/p...uned-for-life/

There is much evidence for god as there is for a sufficiently large multiverse that explains away the fine-tuning problem. That is to say the evidence for either is scant. So, if Faber is right (there's no reason to assume she's not), and it's either god or a large enough multiverse, the theist is on the same epistemological ground as the scientist who asserts there are an infinite/near infinite number of universes. Both are expressing a faith-based view.

But the theist can go a little further. They can point to the universality of spiritual experience and claim god is a better candidate to explain that than a very large multiverse. They can also claim that god is a better candidate than the universe for something that has eternally existed or contains the cause of its existence within itself.

We are the puddle, continually amazed that the hole in the ground is the EXACT RIGHT SIZE for us to fit into. How can that be? Must be God, right?

Yeah, that is what ALL the puddles think.
__________________
► 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; 5th November 2017 at 11:31 AM.
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 5th November 2017, 11:27 AM   #225
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,510
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
We are the puddle, continually amazed that the hole in the ground is the EXACT RIGHT SIZE for us to fit into. How can that be? Must be God, right?

Yeah, that is what ALL then puddles think.
Yeah, that analogy fails, for obvious reasons. Would you like more quotes from cosmologists about the fine-tuning problem? There's Davies, Hawking, Tegmark, Siegel, Rees, Linde...

The point is, the theist is on extremely solid ground when referring to the fine-tuning problem. You, not so much.

"There are lots of examples of these fine-tuning problems in the Universe, including the facts that:

The Universe has similar amounts of dark matter and dark energy today, which is a coincidence problem.
The fact that the masses of the fundamental particles are ~1017-1023 orders of magnitude lower than the Planck mass, which is a hierarchy problem.
The fact that the spatial curvature of the Universe is indistinguishable from 0, which is a coincidence problem.
The fact that the strong interactions exhibit no CP-violation whereas the weak ones do, a hierarchy problem where a particular rate is suppressed by a factor of a billion or more from what's expected.
And the fact that the neutrino mass fraction, the normal matter mass fraction, and the dark matter mass fraction are all within 2 orders of magnitude, another coincidence problem.
"
...

But inflation is particularly interesting when it comes to the question of spatial curvature. There were originally three fine-tuning problems that served as motivation for it:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw.../#4340c5c266c9

Last edited by Fudbucker; 5th November 2017 at 11:29 AM.
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 5th November 2017, 11:42 AM   #226
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,394
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Hell, that nonsense video could have the secret to turning Panther piss into gasoline, but I ain’t gonna sift through 35minutes of **** to find the shiny penny at the bottom.
Mmm would seem that you actually did:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I'm sorry, was there something in the video in the OP about "Slavery"? perhaps you can give me a timestamp where that was discussed?

Thanks in advance.
Otherwise how could you venture an opinion on what was not in it?

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans 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, 12:01 PM   #227
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,891
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Yeah, that analogy fails, for obvious reasons. Would you like more quotes from cosmologists about the fine-tuning problem? There's Davies, Hawking, Tegmark, Siegel, Rees, Linde...

The point is, the theist is on extremely solid ground when referring to the fine-tuning problem. You, not so much.

"There are lots of examples of these fine-tuning problems in the Universe, including the facts that:

The Universe has similar amounts of dark matter and dark energy today, which is a coincidence problem.
The fact that the masses of the fundamental particles are ~1017-1023 orders of magnitude lower than the Planck mass, which is a hierarchy problem.
The fact that the spatial curvature of the Universe is indistinguishable from 0, which is a coincidence problem.
The fact that the strong interactions exhibit no CP-violation whereas the weak ones do, a hierarchy problem where a particular rate is suppressed by a factor of a billion or more from what's expected.
And the fact that the neutrino mass fraction, the normal matter mass fraction, and the dark matter mass fraction are all within 2 orders of magnitude, another coincidence problem.
"
...

But inflation is particularly interesting when it comes to the question of spatial curvature. There were originally three fine-tuning problems that served as motivation for it:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw.../#4340c5c266c9
Setting aside the fact that Forbes is not a peer reviewed science journal, you misrepresent what the article actually says.

For example...
Quote:
It's possible that these facts simply represent the way the Universe is, and that there is no physical explanation underlying it. That the laws and properties and constants of the Universe simply are what they are, and there isn't any deeper reason for it than that. This is possible, of course, and there's never any way to rule this out. On the other hand, it's the equivalent of giving up on science. Accepting that this is the way the Universe is, with no further explanation, means a cessation to investigations, and an end to the attempt that science can make: to come up with a physical explanation for the physical Universe.
and...
Quote:
The Universe is under no obligation to have an explanation for the properties we observe
At no point is theism mentioned and in no way does the article offer any hope or comfort for theistic belief.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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 5th November 2017, 12:12 PM   #228
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,956
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Mmm would seem that you actually did:

Otherwise how could you venture an opinion on what was not in it?

Hans
I am quite certain that asking a question is not "venturing an opinion."

A question that was never answered
__________________
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 5th November 2017, 12:40 PM   #229
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,510
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Setting aside the fact that Forbes is not a peer reviewed science journal,
Ethan Siegel is an expert in a relevant field.

Quote:
you misrepresent what the article actually says.

For example...

and...


At no point is theism mentioned and in no way does the article offer any hope or comfort for theistic belief.
Lolz
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 5th November 2017, 01:08 PM   #230
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,394
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I am quite certain that asking a question is not "venturing an opinion."

A question that was never answered

The rest of the time, you reject it for being puerile, but on slavery, you seem to know that it does not touch on it.

Sure, I can't prove it, but... try to be less transparent.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans 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, 01:48 PM   #231
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,620
The fact that our universe seems to be conducive and almost perfectly fine-tuned for life doesn't really surprise me, because we are here to observe this. If it wasn't, then we would not even be here to argue the point.

Even if the simultaneous multiverse theory doesn't turn out to be correct, who is to say there haven't been trillions single universes one after the other forever, and we happen to be in this one at this time where the conditions are right. Again, we wouldn't know unless we were here to observe it.

I also contest the idea that the Universe is actually fine tuned for life at all. The vast majority of it... something like 99.99999999999999999999999999999% is actually hostile for life (as we know it) - the vacuum of space is instant death for our type of life. Life only has the chance to exist when a combination of conditions are just right, and while that is very, very rare, the universe is such a large place that this rarity is actually a multitude of certainties.


Brian Greene at TED Talks 2012. Well worth watching, assuming that you (the reader) don't have the attention span of a flea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf7BXwVeyWw
__________________
► 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; 5th November 2017 at 01:51 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 5th November 2017, 01:55 PM   #232
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,893
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
There are arguments for god(s) of course. My favorite references the fine-tuning problem. It's short:<snip>
Your favorite reference is a false-dichotomy fallacy? Okay, well, at least you're up-front about it.


Quote:
There is much evidence for god as there is for a sufficiently large multiverse that explains away the fine-tuning problem. That is to say the evidence for either is scant. So, if Faber is right (there's no reason to assume she's not), and it's either god or a large enough multiverse, the theist is on the same epistemological ground as the scientist who asserts there are an infinite/near infinite number of universes. Both are expressing a faith-based view.
LOL There's no reason to assume she's wrong. IOW, a bunch of assumptions built on guesses and you take it as a fact.


Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Ethan Siegel is an expert in a relevant field.
Lolz
Great in-depth, sophisticated response.
The Norseman 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, 01:57 PM   #233
Thor 2
Master Poster
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 2,959
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Hell, that nonsense video could have the secret to turning Panther piss into gasoline, but I ain’t gonna sift through 35minutes of **** to find the shiny penny at the bottom.

No, I don't think any of us expected you would, and yes, the video is puerile. On the other hand looking at the stories out of the book you hold so dear, it's hard to find much logic, or justification, for the actions of the god described therein. You have been asked about this many times on other threads, and the best you have come up with is some of the stories are allegorical. When pressed to explain the allegorical meaning of some of the stories, we are not enlightened and it has been suggested by you that one needs faith to understand them.

Perhaps I will try one more time and see if this bears fruit this time:

Let us consider the story involving an exchange between God and Abraham, when God tells him that he has decided to wipe out the corrupt cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because “their sin is very grievous”. (Genesis 18:20)

Abraham manages to talk God out of taking this drastic action. He suggests at first that there may be fifty people in the city that where “righteous”, and God should not wipe them out along with the rest. God concedes and then Abraham suggests forty five, then forty, and eventually gets down to twenty and then ten. God gives up on the argument (a little miffed perhaps?) and he and Abraham go their separate ways. (Genesis 18:23-33)

God goes back to destroy the cities anyway – not seeking Abraham's opinion a second time. The only people he thinks worthy of saving is a guy called Lot and his family. He tells them to head for the hills and not look back. With the benefit of hindsight God may have regretted saving these folk. Not only does Lot’s wife disobey orders and take a backward peek, but Lot goes to a cave in the mountains and has an incestuous relationship with both his daughters.

God decides it was a capital offence for Lot’s wife to look back so he turns her into a pillar of salt. He doesn’t have anything to say about the issue of Lot copulating with his daughters, but it is implied that the daughters where at fault because they got their father drunk first. The excuse seems a bit shaky however when we consider that he was sober enough to get both girls pregnant . (Genesis 19:1- 38)


Now can you explain this to us The Big Dog?

Why would God wipe out those cities, killing innocent children along with everyone else? How was it that Abraham managed to get the better of him in the argument? Why would God have such poor judgement of people thinking Lot was such a great guy? Why was Lot's wife treated so harshly for such a minor transgression?

If the story is allegorical what is the deep message being passed on?
__________________
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 5th November 2017, 02:21 PM   #234
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,065
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Well, nobody can say that I didn't try. I explained my position carefully, unambiguously, and in as much detail as I could - not for the first time - and even made sure I did so in a different way using different language to the other times I had done so. And I get back another post just full of replies to things that I didn't say, and addressing points I didn't make and do not believe.

I really do despair that this is seemingly the best this board can manage these days.
Well I wouldn’t feel comfortable leaving you in such a state of despair, so I will try one last time to explain my position carefully, unambiguously, and in as much detail as I can - not for the first time - and even make sure I do so in a different way using different language to the other times I have done so . . .

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I did not say that there was anything dishonest about using childish words to highlight anything.
Seems we're at least in agreement there.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I said that if someone, in communication with another human being, has the intention of entering into honest debate with that human being,
And we apparently agree (see above) that using childish words like “Sky Daddy” in place of “Heavenly Father” to highlight that a “Heavenly Father” belief is “childish” doesn’t contravene the intention of entering into honest debate. Yet as I read your words that’s pretty much what you seem to be claiming, or at the very least implying. Perhaps you mean “effective or optimal debate” rather than “honest debate”?

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
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.
You seem to be saying that using such terms as “Sky Daddy” is neither an “honest” nor “optimal” way of debating. Yet you contrdict the “honest” part with this . . .
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I did not say that there was anything dishonest about using childish words to highlight anything.
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
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.
When I use the term “Sky Daddy” (usually it’s “Invisible, magical Sky Daddy” for greater effect) I do so deliberately to highlight that a “Heavenly Father” belief is essentially a childish belief. That’s the message I’m hoping to communicate and achieve. Calling a spade a spade is the most honest and optimal way I know of describing a spade. In my opinion a ridiculous belief deserves to be treated with ridicule and it’s appropriate to do so. I’m not going to sugarcoat reality for the sake of being “nice” with a dishonest pretense that a childish belief is anything but a childish belief. Perhaps most people on this forum are not hoping to communicate and achieve what you think or hope they are. And perhaps that’s the real cause of your despair.
__________________
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 5th November 2017 at 02:37 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 5th November 2017, 03:55 PM   #235
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,553
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
So sex, drugs and rock n' roll it is then. Nice job citing Paul the eye-witness. He was there, right?

"Fun"? Perhaps not "fun", but certainly a triviality unworthy of any concern and to be encouraged casually at every turn if the bible is to be believed.

Except we can all read what is actually in the bible. The bible is like some mythical dwarf, nasty, brutish and short. Definitely not the vague nice little Disney versions that christians like to foist upon the unwary.

I live in no TV-land.

Nope. It is a warts and all paraphrasis of what the bible actually says. Good helping of hyperbole, true. But still largely accurate.

In that case, how much serious consideration have you given to talking snakes, talking donkeys, unicorns and dragons? Do they seem silly to you? Or do you spend time pondering whether or not they might possibly be true. Do you keep slaves? Or did you immediately knee-jerk into the unwarranted position that slavery is immoral without due consideration for the merits of slavery and the fact that the bible mandates it? How about gender equality? Did you laboriously ponder the bible idea that women are merely property for a long time? How about the Zombie Apocalypse in Jerusalem that nobody noticed? Think that merits serious consideration? What about circumcision? Bible god doesn't just mandate that, he actually collects the foreskins into great steaming piles. This certainly warrants some careful consideration as to it's merits, no? Human sacrifice. Are you all good with that? The bible is. What about genocide? Should we be contemplating the morality of that?
I did think it likely that people would ignore the point I was making and create posts filled with things which didn't address what I said, but I thought I'd give it a go anyway. Hey-ho.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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, 03:56 PM   #236
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,553
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Translation: You are going to continue to dodge the question.

What are you afraid of?
Since you continually feel the need to pretend that I said the exact opposite of what I actually said on the subject, I could ask you the same question. But I know it would be fruitless, so I won't.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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, 04:01 PM   #237
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,553
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
When I use the term “Sky Daddy” (usually it’s “Invisible, magical Sky Daddy” for greater effect) I do so deliberately to highlight that a “Heavenly Father” belief is essentially a childish belief. That’s the message I’m hoping to communicate and achieve.
And if that's what you're trying to achieve, rather than to persuade anybody that your viewpoint is correct, or to have a fruitful exchange of ideas, then you are choosing to employ the correct tactic and nothing I have said has been directed at you.

Quote:
Perhaps most people on this forum are not hoping to communicate and achieve what you think or hope they are.
I'm taking people at their word.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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, 04:05 PM   #238
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,956
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
The rest of the time, you reject it for being puerile, but on slavery, you seem to know that it does not touch on it.

Sure, I can't prove it, but... try to be less transparent.

Hans
Ok. Sorry.

__________________
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 5th November 2017, 04:22 PM   #239
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,620
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Since you continually feel the need to pretend that I said the exact opposite of what I actually said on the subject, I could ask you the same question. But I know it would be fruitless, so I won't.
The problem is that WE; that is abaddon, Toontown, and myself (and perhaps ynot) don't understand what you have been saying. Do you not realise that when several people, try as they might, cannot understand you, that the problem more likely lies with you and not them?

In order to make it easier, I have given you an opportunity to give the cogent argument you require in the form of an actual example. You have been given this opportunity several times both by abaddon and myself. You have spurned those opportunitites. This can only lead us to believe that you are dodging.
__________________
► 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 5th November 2017, 04:30 PM   #240
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 663
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
When I use the term “Sky Daddy” (usually it’s “Invisible, magical Sky Daddy” for greater effect) I do so deliberately to highlight that a “Heavenly Father” belief is essentially a childish belief. That’s the message I’m hoping to communicate and achieve.
To be honest, I usually read the use of the term "Sky Daddy" as an expression of ignorance in modern religion. None of the major faiths have thought that God lives in the sky for hundreds of years.

So, to me, you are displaying your ignorance by using that term, though I'm sure you don't mind doing that. It's like when the Creationists state that evolution has humans evolving from apes, rather than from a common ancestor. If you correct them, they just shrug and say "same thing!" It's a good indication of how seriously to take that person on the topic.
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
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 06:11 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.