Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10
81
General Religious Discussion / Re: Why not produce God and end the debate?
« Last post by jaimehlers on Yesterday at 12:24:50 PM »
Also, to build on ParkingPlaces's point a bit more, an argument is just as logical if it leads to a false conclusion as it is if it leads to a true one.  The only thing that matters is that the argument follows from start to finish.  The point of logic is not to arbitrarily assume that the argument is true for whatever reason; it is to build an argument that can work with all possible inputs, since logic is so utterly dependent on that.  That's how computer programming works - you have to account for every feasible input, otherwise the program will crash or do strange things.

This is what annoys me the most about the Christian use of ontological arguments to prove their god exists.  By using the argument that way, they're sabotaging it, because they're essentially trying to make it look like the premise is true no matter what the input is.  I don't know about them, but I wouldn't want to believe that something was true unless it actually was, no matter how comforting a belief it was.  So, they aren't properly accounting for the inputs; instead, they're relying on trying to sneak in a "the premise is true" clause in the middle of the argument, hoping that nobody else notices.

Such logic isn't worth the paper it's written on in any situation.  Its only purpose is to buttress a particular belief against the likelihood of it being false.  Which, in turn, suggests that Christians do not really have much faith that their god exists, if they're forced to rely on a ploy like this to buttress it.  In my mind, the most faithful of Christians could acknowledge the probability of their god not existing in the real world, because that would give them the greatest return if it turned out that their god did, in fact, exist.  It's easy to believe in something that's self-evident; much harder to believe in something that, as far as you can tell, doesn't even exist.  That, of course, is why Christians want their god to be self-evident, because it is so difficult to believe in something which isn't self-evident, but this is pointless self-deception.
82
I remember when this hit the local news. Quite the scandal in a small farming community. Child sexual abuse surfaces with disturbing regularity in this state. Incest is a big recognized-but-but-discussed problem in outstate. Really big - and the population leans hard to the right. For a long time, Minnesota was[1] a pipeline for funneling girls into prostitution in part because of the regularity of transport between MN and Chicago.[2]

From someone who says he is a former member of this group: blog post from 2009, former member. I have no real reason (other than it's the internet) to think this isn't legit.
 1. it likely still is
 2. Some really unexpected stuff happens in North Dakota (Fargo in particular) as well, for similar reasons - it's not a place that would leap to mind as a criminal hotbed of activity but a significant mount of commercial traffic passes through.
83
I just can't even imagine how parents could fall for a line like that.  Even if I was a cultist I think the desire to protect my kid would override that line of thought.  People are always saying they don't trust government, cops, schools, etc.  But give me your daughters so I can have sex with them for God just sounds fine?
84
General Religious Discussion / Re: Why not produce God and end the debate?
« Last post by jetson on Yesterday at 10:43:37 AM »
85
Quote
Minnesota prosecutors called Barnard a "master manipulator" who persuaded church members to let their daughters, some as young as 12, live apart from them to fulfill what he preached was their biblical obligation to have s e x with him, NBC News has reported.
Quote
Two unnamed girls are now adults but were 12 and 13 at the time they say Barnard assaulted them. They told detectives that Barnard preached that he "represented Christ in the flesh" and that because Jesus "had Mary Magdalene and other women who followed him," it was normal for Barnard to have s e x with them.

Really?  Sounds like the 43,001st denomination has started.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/brazil-arrests-u-s-cult-leader-victor-arden-barnard-wanted-n314976
86
You five premises require a few stretches. Who gets to define "maximal", you or your god? Is he happy with 10% or are you happy with 8.761%.

Maximal is the highest degree of standard or quality. Thus, on pain of contradiction, a maximally great being is and can only achieve the highest degree of standard or quality in whatever he does.

Okay, is he maximal, or just maximal enough? I ask because I'm an atheist, and as an atheist, I don't meet his criteria, so I'm not part of the maximal, but if I were, his maximal would be bigger which is his goal, so why doesn't he make himself as apparent to me as he is to you? Its not like I never wondered, never asked the question, never wanted to know the truth.

Why doesn't his maximal include us non-believers? Is failure required? Are we living examples of non-followers, here only to reinforce those who do fall in to that category? Could maximal be bigger if it weren't so darned central to your argument?

And your narrowing down the possible gods thingy stinks of prejudice. You don't think that the hindu's can't produce at least as much evidence for the maximalness of their many gods than you can for your one? Do you think that the Maasai, of southern Kenya and northern Tanzania, with their cattle all around them, given to them by their god, have less reason to believe their god is maximal than you do? Or is the self-centered world of every other religion illegitimate simply because you say so, from the center of your own?

There is nothing logical about this 'maximal' stuff. You've taken one world, assigned it relevance, and attached it to your god. Then, based on the bigness implied, assigned that size to your god. And done so as if there is no other way of looking at it.

Don't talk to me about a less than intellectual response to your claims. Keep in mind that logic doesn't require truth to be logical. It only requires a well-stated argument. Accuracy is optional. As you are demonstrating here.
87
Science / Re: The pineal gland
« Last post by junebug72 on Yesterday at 08:26:59 AM »
Thanks screwtape.  I will check it out when I get more data.  I'm running low right now.  I think the religious is third eye blind. ;)
88
General Religious Discussion / Re: take the quizz
« Last post by shnozzola on Yesterday at 08:11:38 AM »
That site is a mess, but funny.  If you make it to the end, though, and still don't say you believe in God, it gives you some crap about how you really do believe in God, but are just 'running from' your belief.  Then the 'exit' button redirects you to the Disney web site- WTF?

Anyways, worth a laugh.  :)

If you quickly press " I don't care......"  You go to the Disney site right away.   :)
89
General Religious Discussion / Re: take the quizz
« Last post by Add Homonym on Yesterday at 07:56:21 AM »
You don't get very far, if you don't press the Absolute Truth Exists button. Becuz, if you aren't sure of absolute truth exists, then your uncertainty is an absolute truth, apparently. Who knew it was that simple?
90
General Religious Discussion / Re: Why not produce God and end the debate?
« Last post by shnozzola on Yesterday at 07:28:31 AM »
Hello PhilosoB,
   A few months ago, Parking Places met with Dennis in the debate room.  Part of the agreement before starting was debating as "if" god exists.  PP agreed to the terms, and the debate went on.  That's the problem here - as you stated - "if" you assume god exists, then the arguments 1,2,3,4,5.  Phil, we are atheists - you lost us at "hello", if you see what I mean. 


A would however argue with you in your premises that this "maximally great god", even according to christianity, in the old testament becomes even more maximally great in the new testament, which doesn't follow.....  But I'm sure you have His reasons covered.   As a christian, you think that god has a plan and everything is working according to that plan. That is the rub, Phil.  Here is an example.

A few years ago 3 young boys in New Jersey playing hide and seek, locked themselves in the trunk of an old car on their property in the middle of summer.  The frantic family, searching a couple days for the missing 7 year olds, found that the boys had passed away.


Now, one would say (need to say), as a Christian, believing in this "maximally great god", that the boys death was part of the plan.  Tough for the family to see, as a pastor may console, but nevertheless that was god's will.   Now, once one crosses the atheist line, removing your word "if" - the light bulb goes on - reality makes sense.  Humanity is on it's own. The boys death was an accident.  There never was a maximally great god with a maximally great plan that allows things to happen only by design.
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10