857 replies to this topic

[Paranoid Android]

Alienated Being, on 18 February 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

You see, god doesn't mind watching millions of people die in the holocaust, but he'll help a lone senior be cured of cancer. That's what I don't understand... Prayer has been proven to work, according to MrWalker, however... it didn't work for the millions who died in the holocaust.

It depends.  If by this you mean that God did not grant their prayers with an automatic "YES, I WILL FREE YOU FROM MORTAL DANGER" then perhaps you may have a point.  But even for those who died that does not mean that God did not answer their prayers in another manner.

Alienated Being, on 18 February 2012 - 11:48 PM, said:

Exactly - their faith gave them hope, but that doesn't make a god real...

What about the millions that actually died, though? Was their relationship with god not strong enough? Apparently not enough prayer was conducted.

Even those who died probably found solace in their belief in God.  While this may be put down to entirely human concepts, who's to say that this isn't God answering their prayers?

Edited by Paranoid Android, 19 February 2012 - 05:04 PM.

[Alienated Being]

Paranoid Android, on 19 February 2012 - 04:51 PM, said:

Indeed, and yet people such as Silver Thong speculate on God's motives all the time and then impose their own views on what they believe God should be.  They then post on forums such as this to definitively (from their point of view) prove that God either doesn't exist or is unconcerned with humanity.  I was simply questioning the assumption behind that idea.  Yes, I am doing the same and applying my own set of assumptions.  However, I am admitting that I do this because I believe that our understanding of God can be known through the Bible.  Sure, I could be wrong, but it doesn't invalidate my questioning of ST's assumptions about God's actions.  Does it?

I'd hardly consider a document that has been edited hundreds upon hundreds of times by anonymous individuals over the past 2000 years as being a valid, credible document of any kind. It equates to investing undying belief in a Wikipedia article without any sources.

[Paranoid Android]

Alienated Being, on 19 February 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:

I'd hardly consider a document that has been edited hundreds upon hundreds of times by anonymous individuals over the past 2000 years as being a valid, credible document of any kind.

I'm pretty sure I qualified my statement with a comment that this was my "belief".  I respect that you don't agree, but that doesn't mean that I should suddenly conform to your view.  

However, that is actually rather irrelevant in the context of the question. Even if my use of the Bible as a source is wrong, it does not invalidate the premise - this person is attributing motives to God.  Even if my entire basis for my approach to motives is wrong, what if their assumption is wrong?

[Alienated Being]

Paranoid Android, on 19 February 2012 - 05:20 PM, said:

I'm pretty sure I qualified my statement with a comment that this was my "belief".

Believe all you wish, but that doesn't make it a valid belief.

Quote

I respect that you don't agree, but that doesn't mean that I should suddenly conform to your view.

It's not about conforming to MY view, but rather to the view of logic and reality.

Quote

However, that is actually rather irrelevant in the context of the question. Even if my use of the Bible as a source is wrong, it does not invalidate the premise - this person is attributing motives to God.  Even if my entire basis for my approach to motives is wrong, what if their assumption is wrong?

We'll simply never know, because god can't be proven.

Edited by Alienated Being, 19 February 2012 - 05:28 PM.

[Paranoid Android]

Alienated Being, on 19 February 2012 - 05:25 PM, said:

Believe all you wish, but that doesn't make it a valid belief.

To which I have said you are free to your opinion on this, but it doesn't make you any more qualified than I to make a statement about it.

Alienated Being, on 19 February 2012 - 05:25 PM, said:

We'll simply never know, because god can't be proven.

Perhaps.  That has never really been part of my argument though, so I don't know why it should count against me

~ PA

[Alienated Being]

Paranoid Android, on 19 February 2012 - 05:54 PM, said:

To which I have said you are free to your opinion on this, but it doesn't make you any more qualified than I to make a statement about it.

Who says I need to be qualified to indicate that your belief is fallacious? It's rather self-evident, regardless.

[aquatus1]

Alienated Being, on 19 February 2012 - 06:24 PM, said:

Who says I need to be qualified to indicate that your belief is fallacious? It's rather self-evident, regardless.

No, Alienated Being, it is not.  

If it where a claim, it would not be valid.

If it was based on a known and proven deception, it would be fallacious.

If it was assumed to be authoritative, it would not be credible.

However, it is none of these things.  What it is is a personal belief, based on cultural heritage and honest scrutiny.  

You do not get to tell others that you are the deciding authority as to whether a personal belief is valid or credible (let alone outright false).  The only thing a personal belief requires is an acceptance that it is true.  In this case, not only do we have an acceptance that it is true, we also have an honest and frank acknowledgement regarding the logical gaps in the belief.  That is something fairly rare in cases of personal belief, and they indicate, more than anything else, a reasonable and logical approach to the matter.

You, on the other hand, make demands that are not reasonable, and honestly, not even that logical, such as demanding that your definition of God behaviour be used (despite being contradicted by the documented behaviour), and that all beliefs be removed from the subjective environment they were created in.

You are not qualified to determine whether someone's personal belief is valid or fallacious when you make it so very, very evident that you refuse to understand the source of that belief, the definitions being used for that belief, or even the basic concept of respecting another person's personal belief, even while disagreeing with it, which leads me to what prompted this post in the first place:

Tone down the attitude.  You can argue your side without acting like an ass.

[Alienated Being]

aquatus1, on 19 February 2012 - 11:48 PM, said:

No, Alienated Being, it is not.  

If it where a claim, it would not be valid.

If it was based on a known and proven deception, it would be fallacious.

If it was assumed to be authoritative, it would not be credible.

It is a known deception, simply because of the fact that religion is preached as being fact so dogmatically in this society... when we haven't any evidence whatsoever to reinforce such a belief. Honestly, religion is the ultimate deception.

Quote

However, it is none of these things.  What it is is a personal belief, based on cultural heritage and honest scrutiny.  

It is my opinion that his belief is invalid. It is my opinion, and am entitled to it.

Quote

You do not get to tell others that you are the deciding authority as to whether a personal belief is valid or credible (let alone outright false).  The only thing a personal belief requires is an acceptance that it is true.  In this case, not only do we have an acceptance that it is true, we also have an honest and frank acknowledgement regarding the logical gaps in the belief.  That is something fairly rare in cases of personal belief, and they indicate, more than anything else, a reasonable and logical approach to the matter.

I never once claimed to be the decisive authority regarding his personal belief, however, I expressed my opinion regarding his belief, and my OPINION was that it is, indeed, invalid simply because there's no evidence to reinforce or encourage such a belief (which can easily be explained in a more mundane and pragmatic context),,

Quote

You, on the other hand, make demands that are not reasonable, and honestly, not even that logical, such as demanding that your definition of God behaviour be used (despite being contradicted by the documented behaviour), and that all beliefs be removed from the subjective environment they were created in.

I am a secular atheist... or, at least, moving along that road.

Quote

You are not qualified to determine whether someone's personal belief is valid or fallacious when you make it so very, very evident that you refuse to understand the source of that belief, the definitions being used for that belief, or even the basic concept of respecting another person's personal belief, even while disagreeing with it, which leads me to what prompted this post in the first place:

Tone down the attitude.  You can argue your side without acting like an ass.

The source of the belief? I acknowledge the SOURCE of the belief, but I also ACKNOWLEDGE that it is more logical to consider other alternate possibilities.

[Alienated Being]

Paranoid Android, on 19 February 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

It depends.  If by this you mean that God did not grant their prayers with an automatic "YES, I WILL FREE YOU FROM MORTAL DANGER" then perhaps you may have a point.  But even for those who died that does not mean that God did not answer their prayers in another manner.

We can beat around the bush all day regarding the manner in which God answers prayers... but, I am curious as to what manner in which god could have potentially answered the prayers of those who died?

Quote

Even those who died probably found solace in their belief in God.  While this may be put down to entirely human concepts, who's to say that this isn't God answering their prayers?

Who's to say that it is?

[aquatus1]

Alienated Being, on 19 February 2012 - 11:55 PM, said:

It is a known deception, simply because of the fact that religion is preached as being fact so dogmatically in this society... when we haven't any evidence whatsoever to reinforce such a belief. Honestly, religion is the ultimate deception.

Anything being "preached", is going to be done so in a dogmatic matter, regardless of whether it is religion or science.  Nor is evidence a requirement for a belief.  Deception implies an intent to trick or mislead someone, usually with fraud in mind.  Religion may well be wrong, however to refer to it as deception is to refuse to acknowledge that there are those who honestly regard it as true.

Quote

It is my opinion that his belief is invalid. It is my opinion, and am entitled to it.

And it is my opinion that you are wrong.  And I explained why it is my opinion that you are wrong.  And I explained why it was far from self-evident.

Paranoid Android has his opinion.  You have your opinion.  I have my opinion.  The audience can decide which one is valid, and which one they believe is correct.

What I can say, with total objectivity, is that your opinion is the least well-supported.

Quote

I never once claimed to be the decisive authority regarding his personal belief, however, I expressed my opinion regarding his belief, and my OPINION was that it is, indeed, invalid simply because there's no evidence to reinforce or encourage such a belief (which can easily be explained in a more mundane and pragmatic context),,

Don't be coy.  Every single response to his personal belief, even his clarification that it was a personal belief, was met by your repetition that his belief did not meet your standards of credibility and validation.  Behaviour counts, Alienated Being.

Quote

I am a secular atheist... or, at least, moving along that road.

Irrelevant.  If anything, arguing this topic from the point of secular atheism should enforce the idea that one needs to define something by the behaviour shown, rather than the claims that are made.

Quote

The source of the belief? I acknowledge the SOURCE of the belief, but I also ACKNOWLEDGE that it is more logical to consider other alternate possibilities.

No, Alienated Being, no you do not.  You simply assume that you know what it is.

[Alienated Being]

aquatus1, on 20 February 2012 - 01:12 AM, said:

Anything being "preached", is going to be done so in a dogmatic matter, regardless of whether it is religion or science.  Nor is evidence a requirement for a belief.  Deception implies an intent to trick or mislead someone, usually with fraud in mind.  Religion may well be wrong, however to refer to it as deception is to refuse to acknowledge that there are those who honestly regard it as true.

They can regard it as being true, however, if there is no evidence to support it, it is considered deception, in my opinion. It misleads people and sways them from logical deduction.

Also, preaching doesn't necessarily need to incorporate dogmatism.

Quote

And it is my opinion that you are wrong.  And I explained why it is my opinion that you are wrong.  And I explained why it was far from self-evident.

It is definitely self evident... No evidence to support it = incredible.

Quote

Paranoid Android has his opinion.  You have your opinion.  I have my opinion.  The audience can decide which one is valid, and which one they believe is correct.

That is quite fine.

Quote

What I can say, with total objectivity, is that your opinion is the least well-supported.

Really? How so?

Quote

Don't be coy.  Every single response to his personal belief, even his clarification that it was a personal belief, was met by your repetition that his belief did not meet your standards of credibility and validation.  Behaviour counts, Alienated Being.

Not only that, but it didn't meet the credible and validation standard of logic and science, either.

Quote

No, Alienated Being, no you do not.  You simply assume that you know what it is.

And I assume based on his replies, and the contents within them.

Edited by Alienated Being, 20 February 2012 - 02:18 AM.

[Habitat]

Alienated Being is 21 and had years of serious health issues, I'd be happy enough to forgive his dogmatic attitude of militant atheism. He may have not heard the saying "you catch more flies with honey, than with vinegar", though.  

[Alienated Being]

Habitat, on 20 February 2012 - 02:18 AM, said:

Alienated Being is 21 and had years of serious health issues, I'd be happy enough to forgive his dogmatic attitude of militant atheism. He may have not heard the saying "you catch more flies with honey, than with vinegar", though.  

Yes.... I have had many years of health issues, and they have persisted into my adult years; however, not to the degree that they used to... thankfully.

[Paranoid Android]

Alienated Being, on 19 February 2012 - 06:24 PM, said:

Who says I need to be qualified to indicate that your belief is fallacious? It's rather self-evident, regardless.

Funny, if you were me in my life with my experiences it would be "self evident" that God exists.  You have a fundamentally different paradigm, and you are free to hold your opinion.  That doesn't mean that everyone else is suddenly deluded or wrong just because they don't meet YOUR expectations.  

Alienated Being, on 20 February 2012 - 12:02 AM, said:

We can beat around the bush all day regarding the manner in which God answers prayers... but, I am curious as to what manner in which god could have potentially answered the prayers of those who died?

You're not curious, you just want to find new ways to tell me I'm wrong.  I could give several ways that God could have answered their prayers, but you would simply put it down to a non-existent entity.  Negative reinforcement, AB.  I said that to you once before - your attitude is not really conducive to us opening up and sharing with you when the likely result is going to be ridicule and attack.  There's no reason for me to share, and every reason for me not to.  

Best wishes,

~ PA

[Habitat]

AB is psychoceramic.    His ideas are "set" in stone.