In other words; your position is untenable, you pretty clearly know it is, but rather than admit it you are using the tactic that seems popular with believers and right wingers on this board; stamping your foot and insisting that the other side is unworthy of debate. You prefer to post claims that the other side is making childish arguments, without actually addressing them; or claiming persecution and then claiming you are immune to baiting when you get asked exactly how you are being persecuted.
Sure, but I meant specifically in this context.
e.g. Following a disaster, there’s a mass where the priest describes the problem of evil (and even uses the phrase), before giving lucid accounts of just how short our existence here is compared to eternity.
Which is great, but it doesn’t really explain anything.
Again, it’s god torturing us now, and promising tea and cupcakes later (without first asking if this is something we’d be willing to sign up for).
Thanks, a very good summary.
Of course, to be honest, I was just calling Kimmy_Gibbler’s bluff, after his earlier declaration that good explanations are out there, if only those ignorant atheists would open their eyes (paraphrased)
Well, in my opinion, it’s nasty to make any use of a natural disaster to score political points.
That includes both Pat Robertson and the OP.
The religious aspect is irrelevant. Both the religious and the atheist can be nasty, as this thread proves.
Nonsense. As begbert2 pointed out elsewhere, the word “faith” “actually speaks of a way of retaining belief in some claim, not the way to get the information in the first place.” It doesn’t make sense to claim that faith led somebody to believe something.
As for what actually did lead Pat Robertson to believe that Haitians made a pact with the devil, see this GQ thread or the article it links to.
As to Mijin: I was addressing the middle-brow trend of talking about our feelings rather than taking ideas seriously. It is the trend that leads people to say things like “Well, when I went to church, I wasn’t convinced,” or “I heard about that on NPR, and I thought it was dumb.” I have no doubt that people experience these responses, and maybe there is a place for their discussion in serious intellectual pursuits. But! It is all to easy to get addicted to talking about our own gut reactions to ideas and to fail to advance beyond a mere boo-or-hurrah level of thinking.
And this has been the only thing I want to accomplish in this thread. Surely, Der Trihs, you have not been remiss in noticing that a lot of religious talk on this board is of an appallingly simplistic, boo-or-hurrah, “how do you feel about X?” survey-like caliber. Now, you seem to have devoted a lot of time to this topic, and I should think you would welcome the challenge of stepping up the quality of the conversation instead of having the same high-concept skirmish over and over again. Let’s have something new; that only seems sporting.
As to Dio: If you want to engage him, have at it. He’s all yours.
How can there be something new? Religion is intellectually sterile. The same arguments are being made, because despite the millennia it has been around Christianity ( and other omnimax-god religions ) has yet to produce a good argument about the POE. You’ll see new arguments when the religious side comes up with a worthwhile argument for its position. Which it won’t, ever.
A silly thing to say since I agree with him on this. YOU are the one claiming he is wrong, and is making personal attacks on you. And then refusing to back up your claims, while pretending to intellectual superiority.
So, what is a good theodical argument?
I’m kind of curious how much complexity is required.
A: [Religious belief X]
B: Can you prove X? What evidence can you provide that shows X is better than, say, Y? How do you feel about some of the very bad things other proponents of X have done?
Where the conversation goes depends on how A replies to these perfectly valid questions.
The corollary to this would accordingly be that all of the counterarguments have been dispatched, and that anti-religion is equally unproductive of new theological ideas and that our perennial debates on the issue on the Straight Dope are just so many dead horse beatings (which, admittedly, is likely true).
But, while I think the state of the debate on the SDMB is pretty stale, I’m not convinced it’s because either side is intellectually sterile, because I doubt so many people would be interested in advocating either side of the issue were that the case. People don’t tend to get as enthusiastic about intellectually sterile debates as they do about this one.
Otherwise, Der Trihs, what do you get out of making this your pet issue?
Oh, I’m sure you could find a bunch of reading lists on the issue throughout the internet. I’m not TAing this thread and I’m not going to advocate any particular response. I’m just tired of the discussion constantly staying at the rudimentary level it has been at.
I reserve the right to criticize simplistic discussion without adding substantively to the discussion. I know, it’s not very nice. And not as helpful as doing both. But that’s life. It’s like when Roger Ebert gives a movie one star; he doesn’t have to make a better movie—that’s not the point of film criticism.
Sort of. I guess this is a step forward, insofar as at least it’s open-ended and might get people talking about interesting things, rather than self-satisfied smugness. But it still seems like each side is trying to convince the other to adopt their religious beliefs/beliefs about religion. I’m not interested in that. That’s not new or fresh. It’s just the same stale bullshit. Do we want to read that yet again?
I’m not saying atheists need to be abashed about their beliefs. But, really, I don’t give a shit whether Der Trihs sees the light or whether kanicbird loses his/her faith. That’s too small stakes for me. I want to talk about the titanic agon of ideas, not the little pissing contests of petty personal victories on internet message boards.
The counterarguments stand, because religion doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Here is the debate:
Atheists: By the way: POE.
Theists: Nuh-uh!: <proposes a load of flimsy arguments against the POE>
Atheists: Er, no: <rebuts counterarguments into smoking rubble>
Theists: Nuh-uh!: <repeats the same, already-rebutted crap.>
Atheists: Um, those are already rebutted. But in case you weren’t paying
attention: <repeats counterarguments, adding to the pile of rubble.>
Theists: Nuh-uh!: <re-repeats the same, already-rebutted crap.>
Atheists: You can’t do that! :smack: Those’re already rebutted! That’s not how argument works!
Theists: Nuh-uh!: <re-re-repeats the same, already-rebutted crap.>
Atheists: No, you cant, just - Aaarglebargleblagh!!! <Goes on an insane rampage through the produce section at the local supermarket and gets thrown in jail.>
Theists: Debate victory! 
And then you come along promising new, decent arguments against the POE, you tease. But you’re just blowing smoke. What a disappointment.
And as for why we don’t just stand around quietly while the theists spout ignorant garbage - putting aside that this ignorance has consequences, what message board are you posting on again?
That is not the fault of those who use simplistic logic to show the logically obvious. It is the fault of those who will not listen to it. If you don’t particularly believe any of the arguments on either side, you’re free to not partake.
And yet, curiously, you never get around to actually DOING it. :dubious:
A ridiculous statement. People care because religion constantly inflicts its delusions on the world. And because the religious won’t stop trying to pretend their beliefs are true.
The chance to vent on something I find disgusting, evil, destructive, stupid, and ubiquitous. And because the subject constantly comes up; I post arguments against religion, when the subject comes up; and the subject comes up a lot. I don’t post about other delusional things like lucky rabbit feet, because people don’t post on the SDMB trying to pretend they actually work. Nor are there advocates of rabbit footism trying to write their beliefs into law, or killing people for the Foot.
And I note you have just used yet another Standard Tactic of the religious apologist; the wide eyed bafflement about why atheists would care so much if religion is so stupid, when the answer is obvious.
Oh, please. You are trying to defend an intellectually bankrupt position; you obviously know that it’s intellectually bankrupt; so you are trying to argue for your side by accusing everyone else of intellectual shallowness and refusing to provide any good arguments for your side ( since they don’t exist ). You keep throwing out claims that good arguments are out there, without providing one; no doubt because your supposed “good argument” would get torn apart like raw meat in a shark tank.
No; that’s religious apologism.
Trouble is, while I recognize that religions have built layer upon layer of complexity into their systems of beliefs, how “titanic” is any of it, really, if there’s no solidity? What’s the difference between a wildly complex, loosely-linked set of religious beliefs and a wildly complex loosely-linked set of known-fictional tales, as in 35 years of Star Trek and its descendants?
And that’s not a flippant question - if Star Trek episodes were just presented as morality plays dramatizing the major events of some religion (arguably, some individual episodes are exactly that), would it have any more significance than something created for pure entertainment?
Yep thats what Robertson did. Prayer and compassion.
By “dispatched” I had meant “sent out, emitted” not “disposed of.” I suppose that was ambiguous.
Inventing the you and your opponent’s exchange, as you did in the portion above the part I post above, is the very archetype of the strawman argument. If you consider that “fighting ignorance,” I think we are in dire straits indeed.
It’s not a strawman when 90% of the people who praise God for delivering them from a disaster believe that God is omnimax, even if (or especially if) they have never engaged in formal theodicy.
OK. Let me pull a begbert.
Ludovic: It’s not a strawman when blah blah blah.
Kimmy_Gibbler: Wrong! <Demolishes Ludovic with brilliant counterargument>
Ludovic: Nah uh! <Inanely trots out just demolished position again>
Kimmy_Gibbler: No, I already refuted that position <Once again lays out rebuttal, with skillful rhetorical flourish>
Ludovic: Uhhhhh… I don’t think so. <As you can imagine, another round of the same argument>
Kimmy_Gibbler: I say thee nay! Hearken! <Rebuts above>
Everybody else on the SDMB: Kimmy_Gibbler, you are so wise and sexy. Can I have all of your babies.
Now, you’ll just have to trust me that those rebuttal exist and that our conversation would proceed exactly as I have adumbrated above. Clearly this mode of argumentation worked for begbert and represents impeccable logic. I stand ready graciously to accept your humble concession.
All this is pretty fucking dumb, right? Perhaps you begin to see my point?
If I had any idea what you were getting at, I would. Once again, the OP is not a strawman nor the root of the persistence of tired debate.
I guess the only difference is that we can find numerous examples of his hypothetical on this board, other boards and real life, and no examples that follow yours.
Funny, that.