Great, I ask serious questions, with a serious follow-up, and Kimmy only responds to people whose opinions she claims to despise, and will no doubt re-iterate the inevitable “atheists suck” line.
begbert invented this conversation about how atheists always win (“reduce to rubble”) the answers to theodicy offered by theists. He provides no actual example of this, it is rather like what was called at Jabootu’s Bad Movie Dimesion an “informed attribute.” As in movies where a character is described in expository dialogue as being a great singer or a tremendous athlete, even though these attributes are nowhere in evidence in the film, here too we are told “Atheists always win these arguments and theists always spout inanities” while remaining quite uninformed of any actual instance of this ocurring.
The strawman I was referring to was not in the OP. The OP is not a strawman. It is the beginning point of an ancient theological problem and there is a great deal of ink spilled on the topic. Maybe one day, we’ll get to reach some of this material. But it seems people prefer digging in and just repeating their same old entrenched positions. I just wish they’d preface it with something like “I don’t want to have a serious, searching discussion on the topic. I’m just making a performative utterance that expresses my contempt for religious belief.”
On the other hand, begbert’s imagined conversation was a strawman. Which is what I wanted to point out. You quoted me doing so and then I did my own invented conversation, wherein you were in the position of the begbert’s theists and I in his atheists. Naturally, you weren’t convinced. What do you imagine that suggests about the persuasiveness of begbert’s original fantasy convo?
Then it is amazing that the one place we cannot find them is here. Where they are welcomed and would be completely topical. Unless it happens to be the case that these broad-brush portraits of either side aren’t actually that realistic.
I never said “atheists suck.” In fact, I think I’ve avoided saying which side I come down on at all. A lot of my point, Ekers is that personal feelings and beliefs are inconsequential. I want a smart debate, not to convince anyone of any particular side.
What I would like to see is some of these second and third and later-round iterations of the theodicy problem reflected in religious discussions on the SDMB. As it is now, I would liken it to the Snackpit. You read the Snackpit and you think: “Yes, poop jokes are a little bit funny. But I’ve been making poop jokes since the second grade. I want something new, something smarter! This is just kind of dumb.”
Atheists: Stop telling me poop jokes.
We can only work with the material you give us.
If rudimentary logic is all that is required to dismiss a omnimax god then rudimentary logic is what you’re going to get. That’s rather most atheist’s standpoint. What level of discourse do you require? The simplest effective argument is the best argument. The POE has never, ever been able to be logically argued by theologists because it is logically untenable in the light of an omnimax supreme being.
So, you asked for more reasoned argument, a few posters replied dutifully, you refuse to even address one poster and you duck the other one? They’re the same old arguments because their logic holds true and have never been able to be refuted.
Oh no, what begbert said there is true.
Poster A: Beginning level theodicy argument.
Poster B: God works in mysterious ways.
Poster C or sometimes A: Medium level argument.
Poster B: […], where […] is usually a variant of Pascal’s Wager or Appeal to Fear, or a rewording of Mysterious Ways, or a Gnostic argument (secret revelations), or a complete refutation of the logical system (in which case why try to answer logical arguments in the first place.)
We would have better rejoinders to Poster A if there were anything more than beginning level answers. As it is, there aren’t any. So the argument never gets more complex than the first go around, because there really isn’t any argument beyond that. That’s what I call demolishing.
Actually, I’ve posted to the Snackpit under my real name because I’m a troublemaker, but that’s neither here nor there.
If you feel the discourse is too dumb, then you’re simply not paying enough attention to the smart questions being asked. In my earlier statement (which you quoted), what is A-the-theist’s response to B-the-atheist’s questions? What is the response to someone comparing Christianity’s belief system (or that of any religion) to that of a fictional universe?
These shouldn’t be difficult to answer. They’re not for any branch of science, for example.
Look, if you can’t bring yourself to admit that I was describing the real state of the debate (albeit with a humoruos conclusion - in reality the atheists keep coming back for more), then that is your personal damage.
And the very definition of a strawman is attributing a position to somebody else, and then attacking that position - which I clearly didn’t do becuase I didn’t actually state anyone’s positions. Just in case anybody is keeping track of the erroneous accusations that are being thrown out in leiu of debate.
[QUOTE=Kimmy_Gibbler;11999412I never said “atheists suck.” In fact, I think I’ve avoided saying which side I come down on at all. A lot of my point, Ekers is that personal feelings and beliefs are inconsequential. I want a smart debate, not to convince anyone of any particular side.
What I would like to see is some of these second and third and later-round iterations of the theodicy problem reflected in religious discussions on the SDMB. As it is now, I would liken it to the Snackpit. You read the Snackpit and you think: “Yes, poop jokes are a little bit funny. But I’ve been making poop jokes since the second grade. I want something new, something smarter! This is just kind of dumb.”
Atheists: Stop telling me poop jokes.[/QUOTE]
Put up or shut up. The reason there isn’t complex debate here is because the theism side isn’t bothering to introduce any decent arguments in this thread, which means that the atheists don’t need to break out the sledgehammers to swat the flies. If you don’t like that, then show us that the theism side isn’t empty air. Because that is your side, despite your apparent lack of sufficient bravery to even stand by your foundationless positions.
You failed. You are obviously on the religious side; otherwise, you would not be trying to pretend that there is a serious debate here. The religious side is simply wrong; obviously so. As has been pointed out repeatedly. Only someone committed to defending religion - and the specific brand of omnimax-god religion at that - would be taking the position you are taking.
And there’s nothing noble or intellectually superior about refusing to even admit your position.
As said; there are none. The religious side is wrong, has no good arguments and that is that. Intellectually speaking, this is a main battle tank against a rubber duckie. The only reason that it isn’t over instantly is because the religious side isn’t interested in actual arguments, logic or facts. Just baseless assertions and excuses.
Well, I guess we’re at an impasse. What do you propose we do?
I propose that you either actually advance an argument for debate, or stop complaining that we’re not doing it for you.
dhkendall:
I think you have misread me.
Satan does just about every evil thing that Satan could do to Job.
IIRC Job did nothing particularly evil but he was not without sin, either.
You guys are arguing over the wrong question. It’s not God’s doing. The earthquake was caused by climate change and global warming because nothing happened at the Copenhagen summit. I know this because that’s what Danny Glover said it.
You are definitely doing your part to sterilize this debate. I will grant you that much.
If you want a “smart debate”, you have a curious way of showing it by going after the low hanging fruit, the poorest arguments from atheism. You claim to be interested in ideas, but what do you actually know?. But you were so, yes, butthurt from Dio’s comments that your commitment to real debate appears to be skin deep. So really, what authors have you read? Do you have any languages besides English? Do you have any thoughts of your own on this subject or do you just prefer to shoot the fish in the barrels?
Personally, I am far more interested in early theodicy, especially Boethian. But I am reasonably comfortable with anyone up to and including Aquinas. Boethius’ theodicy does posit an omnimax God, but disbelief in any of these characteristics does not actually change his argument. I have my own non-theist interpretations of Boethius just as I (and plenty of others) do of Stoicism. I could certainly lay out a Stoic interpretation of the Haiti disaster, but really, you should just read the books for yourself. Error vos inscitaque confundit.
You and your fancy book larnin!
Yes and no on the first 2. I doubt your average Haitian has the means to move and live wherever he wants to. Same for people who had the infortune to be born in third world countries ravaged by famine, droughts, quakes, floods etc…
Well, obviously they are part and parcel of the POE. What immortal hand or eye dare frame Willy’s fearful symmetry ? Or, in layman’s terms, what kind of sick fucking bastard from the asspit of Hell would come up with killer whales ?
Saruman, of course. He raised a whole army of orcas.
At God’s bidding. Satan in the OT is not evil. He’s God’s servant. What’s the difference if God dos the dirty work or has one of his thugs do it?
So what?
Since you’re so smart: Where did I “go after the low hanging fruit, the poorest arguments from atheism”? I don’t think I advocated a position on either side. But perhaps I am mistaken.
Also, would you graciously indulge me with your Stoic interpretation of the Haitian earthquake?
You’ve repeatedly bashed atheists in this thread. And, again, you are taking a position that only someone trying to defend omnimax-god religion would; anyone else, atheist or non-omnimax believer would recognize and admit the bankruptcy of the other side in this. So yes, you have been advocating a position; you’ve just been unwilling to admit it.
Especially since the religious one is probably more interested in conversion than help.
Of course if 500 thousand are killed by this earthquake, that would mean about 150,000 kids died . Lots more injured. good work there god.