The IPU certainly can be used to ridicule religion. I think the whole Jesus VS. the IPU thread is a case in point. That is not the same thing as saying that the IPU has no value as an argument. When a person fails to comprehend someone’s lack of belief in God, or contends that a belief in God is necessary given the evidence, or contends that their particular God is the only possible explanation, that’s whe the IPU rears her horny head. It is simply a lens through which one can show another how the attributes they claim for their God can be utterly unconvincing when applied to another incarnation.
Martyr much?
And don’t you think it’s odd that you follow that statement with two paragraphs of opinion?
N2K, I understand that you think the IPU is a sick joke. I do not agree with you. And I am sorry you feel the way you do. I wish there were some way I could change your mind, but I think there is not.
As a former MasterDebater, I will say that the IPU thread is a classic technique of debate. The technique is to take your opponent’s position and transpose it into an obviously ridiculous millieu. The point is that, if we take away the opponent’s assumptions, we attempt to show that the position itself no longer stands.
I can’t speak for the OPer’s state of mind or intent when he/she started the thread. I can say that, as a principal of debate, whether the tactic is offensive to the opponent is irrelevant. Nor does the fact that it is about religion make any difference. There are plenty of secular ideologies out there that people cling to as strongly as some do to religion, and whose adherents would find the tactic applied to their belief system equally offensive. So? the tactic the promoters of JC should take is to either attack the millieu as not equivalent to RL, or to prove that their position is equally valid in any millieu.
Stop taking offense, and start defending!
Sua
I’d like to buy you a beer, Sua.
Gaudere did that? Could you give a reference, so I can find out why she thinks mercy is unjust, or else justice is unmerciful?
Let me explain…no, there is too much, I’ll sum up. FoG claimed God has “perfect justice” and “perfect mercy.” Gaudere’s definiton of justice was “to punish everyone fairly,” and her definition of mercy was “to not give someone the punishment they really deserve.” (ok, that’s not exactly it, but I think it’s close enough. Gaudere pointed out that these were incompatable. One can not show “perfect mercy” by not punishing people as strongly as they deserve, while at the same time execute perfect justice by punishing people strictly in accordance to their crimes. Search through the 1st Christianity and Love thread and you’ll run into a long run of these arguments…starting I think on the 3rd page.
pinqy
Oh, for heaven’s sake. Why did FoG let her get away with that?
Because he equates belief with logic and hasn’t a clue how to seriously debate. And because he set up contradictory axia, IMO.
Once you read the thread, see if you can spot any flaws in Gaudere’s logic.
-andros-
::grump:: Read the thread. I am not arguing against every defintion of perfect mercy and perfect justice co-existing; I am arguing about FoG’s particular definitions in combination with his statements about his God’s actions. (well, I didn’t let him get away with redefining “perfectly just” to mean “punish the innocent instead of the guilty”, but I did accept his definition of mercy.) Hell, I even hinted to him ways he could resolve his dilemna, but he wouldn’t do it since that would have meant accepting his particular interpretation of God might be slightly incorrect.
You brew your own? 
Sua
Well, I just found this thread. Dunno how it slipped under my radar, but as somebody else has already suggested, better thread titles are a good idea.
Anyway, most of what I would have said has already been said. I just want to reply to one specific thing that my85car said, and a few general ones.
This is one reason people get annoyed with you. This is the second time this week that a proselytizing Christian has tried to psychoanalyze those arguing against him (the other was FriendofGod, in a different thread). Don’t try to come up with excuses as to why people don’t believe the way you do. Just accept it. 9 times out of 10, comments like this are just plain wrong wrong wrong, and then you can’t expect to get nice comments back. Here, for example, you’ve essentially said that atheists and agnostics don’t believe the way you do because they are rebelling against authority. This implies that it is an irrational reaction, rather than a rational thought process. Since most agnostics and atheists pride themselves on being rational, this can be seen as a pretty nasty attack on them.
Now, speaking of attacks, every question to you is not one. As you indicated, you kept complaining of being flamed, when you really weren’t. These sorts of complaints only serve to make things worse, as it looks to others like you are whining about being asked questions.
I hope you take this advice to heart.
Whoops – forgot something. But this is for avalongod, who said:
Well, for one thing, we don’t have too many people coming in here saying, “You must believe in Hinduism, or you will burn forever in a lake of fire.” If we did, I’m sure we would have all sorts of “counter-threads.”
This sort of complaint never makes any sense to me. It reminds me of the guy (don’t recall who right this second) who came into the thread, “Refusing Medical Treatment: Religious Freedom or Negligent Homicide,” which was dealing with a specific religious case, and complained that everybody was “attacking” the one person there while nobody else was talking about other cases. Well, duh. That’s what the thread was about. If a supporter of the other cases he’d mentioned had been in a thread, those other cases would have been relevant.
I don’t believe that I tried to “phychoanalyze” anybody. I merely stated what had happened to me when I was a kid. And I did not say that it WAS what happened to them. I said that it MAY be right along the same lines as what happened to me. And this was only after a couple of posters had said that they were basically forced to go to church when they were young.
As far as what anybody believes or does not believe, that IS their business. However, as I read the Bible, IMHO, it tells me to spread the Word. If you don’t want to believe it, FINE. That is your choice. IMHO, I have done what I was told to do.
As far as titles for threads go, I never wrote a book, so I am not in the practice of making up really great titles. Sorry. I’ll try harder next time.