Sunday School

Sunday School August 25th 2019

This topic contains 64 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by  Davis 3 months, 1 week ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 65 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #27987

    _Robert_
    Participant

    How precisely do you decide what is “just” or “unjust?”

    Obviously you study a flawed old text, interpret it how you like and then you get to decide, judge, condemn, repress and even murder in name of god.

    #27989

    Strega
    Moderator

    The rain it raineth on the just
    And also on the unjust fella;
    But chiefly on the just, because
    The unjust hath the just’s umbrella.

    Charles Bowen

    #27990

    Ivy
    Participant

    @robert

    I’m seriously asking you. Is the best that you can come up with a smart ass remark? And you claim to be sooooooooo logical! Do you think I should bet my life on your brand of justice?

    #27991

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    I think justice is proportionate treatment.  It also means to make good victims in some way.

    #27992

    Ivy, over the last few debates (The god of belief vs the God of the argument in particular) you have demanded explanations from us because you disagree with the premise of the argument and any conclusion drawn from it.  That is fine until you start callieng our argument illogical without offering reasonable counter arguments.  You call our argument fallacious as in “slippery slope” or that we (me) engage in confirmation bias centered arguments. You do this while telling us how we presume to think.

    You make regular statements like You “claim” that you’re SOOOO “open minded” and “willing to examine the evidence…. and willing to engage in honest conversation as you claim to be”.

    When we met you demands for supporting evidence you just pasted a few random links to website that you implied supported your claim. I then debunked them and you either accused me of not being open-minded or lumped everyone else in by accusing them of “Duck, evade, twist, dodge the question…..you play the SAME game that you accuse theists of playing”.

    You gave no indication of why I should read the links. I explained the problem with that. You did not reply to my points. You just demanded I read a pdf from yet another creationist without telling me what points I should consider. You should know my stance on Creationism by now. I told you what was wrong with that and why I would not be reading it. I can discuss anything in that pdf without having to read it because I have read the same crap in several other books. They are all the same and offer nothing new. They are unscientific, ignorant, and full of distorted facts. They misrepresent the quotes of proper scientists and make bend everything to suit their views of biblical “science”.  They indoctrinated schoolchildren with their lies. If you read one of their books you have read them all. Their “literature” is of no value. Did you agree or disagree? No, you just ignored it.

    I lost count of the number of times I asked what you meant by “God”. Recently you said “I don’t know what or who God is”. Then it became “God is Energy”.  Then you told me “It’s really simple Reg” and gave me a third explanation that included something about Jesus. Did it take until then for you to figure out what you believe? Why could you not have answered when first asked so we would know what you for arguing for?

    You say you are open to debate and then back off….tells me you aren’t as “open to changing your mind” as you claim to be.

    You keep accusing us of this. But you make it worse by conflating your replies to imply that somehow by us not wanting to debate with moronic creationist literature that we are somehow damaging human rights or linking my replies to the human rights abuses of children in cages “never able to see their parents again”. You keep accusing us of being disingenuous or talk of an “atheist bandwagon”.  When I suggested that you have not seriously undertaken a study of the history of religion and the evolution of belief you accused me of resorting to an ad hominem attack.

    It certainly appears that you are confused as a theist about what you believe regarding “God”. That is very common. You seem more eager to find something that will convince yourself rather than us that God exists. You covered a lot of ground, from highbrow AI based probability theory, to clinical psychology and final to the gutter of creationist literature before finally admitting “whether or not you believe that is completely a matter of faith”.

    That is the most honest statement a theist can make. People believed in your God long before any of the “evidences” you supplied had existed. Even the now debunked ontological argument is something that only some Christian “scientists” still cling to. As I said in other posts, I have no problem with theists if they admit that it is faith that sustains their belief. It is when they try to tell us that it is something other than based on faith or that we are blind to their god because we refuse to believe in “him” that the problem starts. If you say you believe in God on faith and that your arguments for that belief are also based on the faith that you have in what you consider to be evidence supporting your belief then you will have overturned my hypothesis that “The god of their belief is not the god of their argument”.

    You have rights, your beliefs do not. It is the same with any belief that anyone posts on this site. But whatever that belief is, it does not command respect because it is still just a subjective belief. We are only concerned as to why people believe it if they want us to give it consideration. When someone says “I believe in (a) God” it only relays to us their subjective state of mind.

    But if they want their belief to be given consideration by an atheist then we need more than “I believe a God exists”.

    At times it feels you are almost sealioning posts that discuss belief. On other topics you are very reasonable in your debate. I am sure you don’t do this intentionally but regular disparaging remarks about atheists doesn’t help.

    I am not sure what merit there is to opening an argument with Pascal’s Wager.
    It seems to me the entire basis of the entire argument presumes that you know better than God to begin with.

    Thats a slippery slope…just sayin’.

    So this time rather than “just sayin” please take the time to explain what you think the merits of Pascal’s Wager are and why we should not consider it a poor intellectual argument. This time you do the work and we will debate your answer.

    I would rather risk an unjust God than abandon my intellectual intelligence.
    How precisely do you decide what is “just” or “unjust?”

    No, How do you decide? Tell us and we will debate your answer.

    @robert

    I’m seriously asking you. Is the best that you can come up with a smart ass remark? And you claim to be sooooooooo logical! Do you think I should bet my life on your brand of justice?

    No. You tell us what you bet your life on and what your brand of justice is. This time you make the effort to explain and then we will debate your answer.

    Just don’t “Duck, evade, twist, dodge the question”…..Then you won’t have to  accuse us of playing “the SAME game that you accuse theists of playing” .

    Again you make this assertion about us:

    You say you are open to debate and then back off….tells me you aren’t as “open to changing your mind” as you claim to be.

    We back off?? I don’t think so.

     

     

    #27994

    Ivy
    Participant

    @Reg

    That is fine until you start callieng our argument illogical without offering reasonable counter arguments.

    In THIS debate, specifically addressing Pascal’s Wager, I asked the question of how you measure justice. I was met by Robert with a sarcastic answer that had nothing to do with my question.

    We back off??? I don’t think so.

    Well…did you actually answer MY question? Or did you counter immediately with a bunch of your own? If Pascal’s Wager is accurate why couldn’t you easily answer my question? It shouldn’t be difficult if you are following your own logic.

    #27995

    Ivy
    Participant

    RE: Why could you not have answered when first asked so we would know what you for arguing for?

    Because every time I ask even a very simple question like the one above, I met with the same sort of sarcasm I received just now, NOT answering my honest question. So how do you expect me to tell you exactly what I believe and why when even my most basic questions are also being ignored. That’s EXACTLY why I say that atheists duck, evade, twist my words and avoid answer my questions in any sort of real debate. Why should I try to explain to you anything about what I believe if I already know it’s not going to be taken seriously?

    • This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by  Ivy.
    #27997

    Ivy
    Participant

    Jody is the only one who honestly answered my question.

    @jody

    How do you measure being a “good person?” Is it merely the act of not lying and following the laws?

    #27998

    _Robert_
    Participant

    @robert I’m seriously asking you. Is the best that you can come up with a smart ass remark? And you claim to be sooooooooo logical! Do you think I should bet my life on your brand of justice?

    Wrong. It is so not a smart ass remark, It is EXACTLY how the world has been run. Religions conjured up the rules for their subjects based on an imaginary divine hotline to the gods that they alone controlled and the people lived and died by those rules for centuries and it goes on today. We have secular laws and codes of conduct that are much more fair than any morality based on religion. And they are arrived at by rational thought based on harm done.

    #27999

    Ivy
    Participant

    @robert

    We have secular laws and codes of conduct that are much more fair than any morality based on religion.

    Do you mean the secular laws we wrote that are now the basis by which Donald Trump is keeping children in inhumane conditions separated from their parents?

     

    #28001

    _Robert_
    Participant

    @robert

    We have secular laws and codes of conduct that are much more fair than any morality based on religion.

    Do you mean the secular laws we wrote that are now the basis by which Donald Trump is keeping children in inhumane conditions separated from their parents?

    Long, long way to go obviously. Situations will not be handled correctly and harm like that needs to be addressed, but definitely there is less harm done than that of the divine Sharia Law for example. Or the harm done to enforce the word of the Christian god onto the savages all over the world.

    #28002

    Ivy
    Participant

    @robert

    Long, long way to go obviously. Situations will not be handled correctly and harm like that needs to be addressed, but definitely there is less harm done than that of the divine Sharia Law for example

    Would you honestly be able to look a child in the face who has been separated from their mother and say, “Hey you know, we have a long long way to go….but this is better than Sharia Law!!!

    By what measure can you assess the damage? Following your logic are you saying that even though our justice system is imperfect, that we still have justice figured out?

    #28005

    Jody Lee
    Participant

    @ Ivy

    How do you measure being a “good person?” Is it merely the act of not lying and following the laws?

    It’s not necessarily an easy thing to measure. By my standards though… strong morals, kindness, honest,  helpful, hard work, positivity, and overall good intentions. These traits are just SOME that I would use to define a “good person”.

    #28010

    In THIS debate, specifically addressing Pascal’s Wager, I asked the question of how you measure justice. I was met by Robert with a sarcastic answer that had nothing to do with my question.

    That is not what I said.

    This is what I addressed:

    It seems to me the entire basis of the entire argument presumes that you know better than God to begin with.

    That’s a slippery slope…just sayin’.

    It would seem to me that like most Christians you already know the mind of your god. I asked a hypothetical question.

    You Ok with the rest of my comments?

    #28016

    Ivy
    Participant

    @Reg

    But I actually had in mind was the whole idea behind the atheist wager vs. Pascal’s wager…..

    It seems to me that atheists take the stance that, “If god were so great, why does he let blankity blank blank blank happen?”…..That’s not fair! That’s not justice! To which I respond, you don’t even know what the fuck justice is! You can’t even really wrap your head around it much less carry it out…

    Regarding the rest of your post, there are so many rabbit holes in that. You can think whatever you want about my motives. I’m asking honest questions and being met with sarcasm. It just further proves my point.

    I don’t claim to know what justice is or how to carry it out. You do. If you say that you know what God “should” do if he were in existence…

    That’s why the onus is on you this time.

    As far as all the other rabbit holes, where would you like me to start?

     

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 65 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.