Page 50 of 106 FirstFirst ... 40484950515260100 ... LastLast
Results 491 to 500 of 1053

Thread: Exposing Atheistic Myths

  1. Top | #491
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    18,327
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    42,827
    Rep Power
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    Single dads can't raise kids? This is a very sexist claim.
    So, hiw is "single dads are better at discipline than single moms" NOT sexist, Halfie?
    Can you explain that?

  2. Top | #492
    Cyborg with a Tiara
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Recluse
    Posts
    9,001
    Archived
    9,040
    Total Posts
    18,041
    Rep Power
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by James Brown View Post
    God can't keep kids from being born encephaletic, can't keep tsunamis from wiping out a quarter of a million people, can't keep a lunatic from sending dozens of kindergartners to their graves with bullets in their heads...

    But he has plenty of divine magic juice to compel a man to pick one box out of 40 that contains a defective part?
    And so we get to the REAL REASON why atheists don't believe. It's because they look around and think, "God wouldn't allow this. Therefore, He must not be real." That's as clear cut as you can get. However, this is faulty reasoning.

    Just because God allows things and YOU PERSONALLY don't know why God allows them to happen, this does not mean that God has no reason why these things happen. Your finite miniscule brain can not comprehend every possible scenario like God can. Therefore, you are wrong to think this way.

    What you really mean to say is, "If I was God, I wouldn't allow this stuff!" But, you are not God.

    I’m going to answer this seriously, because while you’re completely wrong about WHY atheists might think it, you re correct that many do think it.


    Here’s the difference.
    IF you define a god as having certain properties,
    AND IF the actions attributed to that god violate those properties,
    THEN you’ve lost your audience, and we will never be able to believe you. You’re just not believable.

    It’s not faulty reasoning to insist on internal consistency. Rather, it’s faulty reasoning to accept a story despite internal inconsistencies.
    Your god story is chock full of bits that contradict other bits. Therefore, we don’t believe that you have a truth.

    Now you’ve gotten to the nub of it.

  3. Top | #493
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    22,597
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    33,074
    Rep Power
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    Single dads can't raise kids? This is a very sexist claim.
    So, hiw is "single dads are better at discipline than single moms" NOT sexist, Halfie?
    Can you explain that?
    Any why should we accept the subtext that discipline is necessarily a good thing in this context?

  4. Top | #494
    Veteran Member Lion IRC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,003
    Rep Power
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    Single dads can't raise kids? This is a very sexist claim.
    So, how is "single dads are better at discipline than single moms" NOT sexist, Halfie?
    Can you explain that?
    Did Half-Life claim to be something other than heterosexist?
    Maybe I missed that post.

  5. Top | #495
    Veteran Member James Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,076
    Archived
    5,844
    Total Posts
    8,920
    Rep Power
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by James Brown View Post
    Either God violated the physical laws of the universe in order to arrange for a person pick up a particular widget, or he did not.

    If he did not, then by definition, it's not a miracle. Unless we stretch the meaning of the word 'miracle' to mean 'anything that happens to have happened,' at which point the word 'miracle' becomes a null value.

    If he did, then it's a poor use of divine resources. It's a box on a pallet--it's not as though lives were at stake.

    I wonder what the man would have said if the defective part was in the last box he picked, and not the first. Would he have suspected Satan to be at work?
    That doesn't even make sense. If the universe is created by God, why would she need to break "physical laws" to accomplish her will? Would the only law natural to the universe be her will? I can't say I've ever met a theist who would describe God as unnatural.
    Maybe I'm confused. Is a man walking on water a violation of a physical property of the universe? Namely, the strength of water's surface tension? Is it not a miracle for a man to walk on water compared to a water bug?

  6. Top | #496
    Veteran Member Treedbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    out on a limb
    Posts
    1,698
    Rep Power
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by James Brown View Post
    God can't keep kids from being born encephaletic, can't keep tsunamis from wiping out a quarter of a million people, can't keep a lunatic from sending dozens of kindergartners to their graves with bullets in their heads...

    But he has plenty of divine magic juice to compel a man to pick one box out of 40 that contains a defective part?
    And so we get to the REAL REASON why atheists don't believe. It's because they look around and think, "God wouldn't allow this. Therefore, He must not be real." That's as clear cut as you can get. However, this is faulty reasoning.

    Just because God allows things and YOU PERSONALLY don't know why God allows them to happen, this does not mean that God has no reason why these things happen. Your finite miniscule brain can not comprehend every possible scenario like God can. Therefore, you are wrong to think this way.

    What you really mean to say is, "If I was God, I wouldn't allow this stuff!" But, you are not God.
    That's not how it works. The reasoning goes that it is because "God can't keep kids from being born encephaletic, can't keep tsunamis from wiping out a quarter of a million people, can't keep a lunatic from sending dozens of kindergartners to their graves with bullets in their heads..." then you have no evidence demonstrating that God is perfectly good, all-knowing, and all-powerful. And that if God is all these things by definition then there is no evidence that God exists.

  7. Top | #497
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    3,479
    Rep Power
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by James Brown View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by James Brown View Post
    Either God violated the physical laws of the universe in order to arrange for a person pick up a particular widget, or he did not.

    If he did not, then by definition, it's not a miracle. Unless we stretch the meaning of the word 'miracle' to mean 'anything that happens to have happened,' at which point the word 'miracle' becomes a null value.

    If he did, then it's a poor use of divine resources. It's a box on a pallet--it's not as though lives were at stake.

    I wonder what the man would have said if the defective part was in the last box he picked, and not the first. Would he have suspected Satan to be at work?
    That doesn't even make sense. If the universe is created by God, why would she need to break "physical laws" to accomplish her will? Would the only law natural to the universe be her will? I can't say I've ever met a theist who would describe God as unnatural.
    Maybe I'm confused. Is a man walking on water a violation of a physical property of the universe? Namely, the strength of water's surface tension? Is it not a miracle for a man to walk on water compared to a water bug?
    Well, if you don't believe that surface tension is a law that God must follow, but rather consider God's will to be a law that the water must follow, the whole thing looks a bit different.

  8. Top | #498
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,040
    Rep Power
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post

    And so we get to the REAL REASON why atheists don't believe. It's because they look around and think, "God wouldn't allow this. Therefore, He must not be real." That's as clear cut as you can get. However, this is faulty reasoning.
    That makes no sense.. people who don't believe in flying elephants don't say that they don't believe in flying elephants because we can;t see their contrials. They say what any rational person says about unbelievable claims.. "The claim is completely unsubstantiated and incredible enough to not just trivially accept.. equally incredible evidence is required to think any more about it"... or something like that..
    Just because God allows things and YOU PERSONALLY don't know why God allows them to happen, this does not mean that God has no reason why these things happen. Your finite miniscule brain can not comprehend every possible scenario like God can. Therefore, you are wrong to think this way.
    .. and no one does. What people do to maintain dialog and have a conversation with someone that has a conspiracy theory or believes in magic or whatever is to theoretically accept.. or as they say, "for the purpose of argument" IF (IF, IF, IF) there was a god with that attribute.. .THEN (THEN, THEN, THEN) your statement makes no sense because IF (IF IF IF) that is true then (THEN THEN THEN) that must also be true, and it conflicts with what you are saying. In other words, to show you how stupid an argument is, one must grammatically accept your statements so as to show you why they are illogical due to internal conflict. IF this THEN that.
    What you really mean to say is, "If I was God, I wouldn't allow this stuff!" But, you are not God.
    No, what they are really saying is "If the god you are describing exists that does the things you say, then we should see this arising from that, and we don't". It is your attributes you assign that "he" is failing to live up to. That's your problem in trying to define the "square circle" in a way that does not internally contradict itself.

  9. Top | #499
    Super Moderator Atheos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Heart of the Bible Belt
    Posts
    2,675
    Archived
    5,807
    Total Posts
    8,482
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by James Brown View Post
    God can't keep kids from being born encephaletic, can't keep tsunamis from wiping out a quarter of a million people, can't keep a lunatic from sending dozens of kindergartners to their graves with bullets in their heads...

    But he has plenty of divine magic juice to compel a man to pick one box out of 40 that contains a defective part?
    And so we get to the REAL REASON why atheists don't believe. It's because they look around and think, "God wouldn't allow this. Therefore, He must not be real." That's as clear cut as you can get. However, this is faulty reasoning.

    Just because God allows things and YOU PERSONALLY don't know why God allows them to happen, this does not mean that God has no reason why these things happen. Your finite miniscule brain can not comprehend every possible scenario like God can. Therefore, you are wrong to think this way.

    What you really mean to say is, "If I was God, I wouldn't allow this stuff!" But, you are not God.
    That's not how it works. The reasoning goes that it is because "God can't keep kids from being born encephaletic, can't keep tsunamis from wiping out a quarter of a million people, can't keep a lunatic from sending dozens of kindergartners to their graves with bullets in their heads..." then you have no evidence demonstrating that God is perfectly good, all-knowing, and all-powerful. And that if God is all these things by definition then there is no evidence that God exists.
    Nitpick time. The word "good" is an escape clause for the problem of evil. Believers can easily commandeer the word "good" and redefine it to "whatever is according to God's will." Once they've done that it's game over. God commands you to commit genocide, it's good to commit genocide and it's evil to disobey. The word is useless. That's why I prefer to rephrase the problem in terms of suffering.

    Does God want suffering? Few Christians would say "Yes" but most would hide the suffering behind a "greater good." This of course starts the Theodicy dance, attempting to defend omnipotence and omniscience while trying not to sacrifice benevolence. The curse of being omnipotent is that you never have to settle for a means to get to an end. You can have your end and you can have it now. This makes you culpable if you deliberately choose to get to the end by way of a method that involves suffering. If you know there is a child slowly dying of malnutrition while nearby vultures can barely contain their excitement at the prospect of this delectable meal, and if you have the power to resolve that suffering without so much as breaking a sweat on your omnipotent pinkie, yet you watch the entire grisly scene unfold... well, you're a malevolent monster. The one thing you ain't is "more benevolent than any other creature in the universe." I could drag a net down any main street in the world and capture at least a dozen humans who would act with more benevolence.

    This doesn't eliminate all gods but it does eliminate any possibility that a god exists who is maximally benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient. There isn't a god like that. Not in this universe.

  10. Top | #500
    Veteran Member Treedbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    out on a limb
    Posts
    1,698
    Rep Power
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Atheos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post

    That's not how it works. The reasoning goes that it is because "God can't keep kids from being born encephaletic, can't keep tsunamis from wiping out a quarter of a million people, can't keep a lunatic from sending dozens of kindergartners to their graves with bullets in their heads..." then you have no evidence demonstrating that God is perfectly good, all-knowing, and all-powerful. And that if God is all these things by definition then there is no evidence that God exists.
    Nitpick time. The word "good" is an escape clause for the problem of evil. Believers can easily commandeer the word "good" and redefine it to "whatever is according to God's will." Once they've done that it's game over. God commands you to commit genocide, it's good to commit genocide and it's evil to disobey. The word is useless. That's why I prefer to rephrase the problem in terms of suffering.
    ...
    I understand your argument, but it doesn't matter how someone defines good, or whether we are even capable of understanding, my point is that there is no evidence for a God so defined. In fact it would be even less meaningful. But it's true that God's tri-omni nature conflicts with the existence of evil. Murdering one's own son or even wiping humanity from the Earth for the sake of one man and his offspring are then within reason.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •