No, it’s used as a means of calling attention TO a weakness in an argument.
The IPU is not used to generically represent “the idea of a deity,” but to represent an alternative to the specific deity which is being proposed.
This is an incorrect understanding. Z is not use as an equivalent to X but as an alternative to it. The challenge is for the theist to explain why the alternative should be rejected in favor of what is being asserted. Why IS the IPU any less likely to exist than YHWH?. That is a serious, fair and reasonable question. It’s not inflammatory at all unless you think that it’s automatically inflammatory to see no difference in evidence between those two concepts.
You’ve been around long enough to not have an excuse for not realizing what kind of board the SDMB is. There’s an active competition going on to argue, undermine and ridicule just about everything, and to do it in a reasonably witty fashion. Without that second part, we’d have degenerated into endless rounds of “u suk!” and as it stands, someone who writes bluntly but not wittily (i.e. badchad) gets as much scorn and ridicule as anyone.
Fact is, if the board was more genteel and we were restrained from being “damn rude” on occasion, it would also be boring as hell.
Personally, I’m disinclined to ridicule religious beliefs (though I doubt I’d hesitate a million years), but I’ll jump all over religious practices that do more harm than good and I won’t hesitate to blast anyone who suggests religion (or “psi” or other paranormal theories) should displace science and reason on any battlefield at any time. For this particular thread, it’s not convincing that theistic belief is necessary to be a good member of society, nor that theistic belief will prevent one from being a bad member of society.
All right then, make it a gang of people with red hair. Then you meet me later on, and I happen to have red hair. Are you going to hold the behavior of other red-haired people against me? After all, I could change my hair color if I wanted to.
But you’re assuming that, because one particular interpretation of Christian teachings tells people to kill gays and witches, that they all do. More than that- you’re saying that, because one particular sect of one particular religion tells people to do something bad, all religion is evil. You could just as well say that because there are laws that tell people to do something bad (laws in a Muslim country saying that someone should be executed for converting from Islam, for example), that means that all laws are bad.
I never said I don’t realize what kind of board this is, but I have my own opinions of certain people who don’t seem to have any regard for the opinions or feelings of others.
I would never say that this was the case. But there are people here who will say that the opposite is true…that theistic belief prevents one from being a good member of society, and will necessarily make one a bad member of society. This is a sweeping judgment that I find to be inherently prejudiced, and I have no respect for people who hold it.
That’s exactly right. This is the point I was trying to make about the religious authority. There IS no one religious authority in any religion (taking the Christian religion as a whole, not separting out the Catholic Church in particular). If I have a minister or priest, and that person tells me to hate gay people, it is still just one man’s interpretation of the religion. Likewise, whether I pay his opinion any heed is just MY interpretation of the religion. I am certainly not aware of any teaching of Christ that tells me to hate gays. If someone reads the scripture, and sees such a teaching where there is none, how is this the fault of the religion, rather than the fault of one person?
But I believe the internet in general gives people with antisocial tendencies a place to anonymously vent. A lot of people online, hell even in this thread, say things they would not have the courage to say in real life.
Just about any online forum draws its share of twits. From time to time you may even see one in the wild!
For the most part, Unitarians aren’t C’tians & don’t believe in any sort of Hell, not even temporary ones, and my view of the Lake of Fire as God’s Purifying (and temporarily painful) Presence isn’t the only interpretation among Universalists.
There are Unitarians, Universalists & Unitarian Universalists, and differences within those three groupings.
Believers & Unbelievers alike, every group has people who are just dicks, and every individual has a certain streak of dickness within them.
Atheists however believe in neither a Judge against Dickness or a Savior from Dickness. Christians believe in both- I wish that made us less prone to Dickness, but to the degree that we fall to it, we will be judged, probably more harshly than Atheist Dicks, because we were supposed to know & behave better.
I just want to say that I think you might be telling a lie. I was a boy scout all my life. I joined cub scouts in 1st grade, and stayed through, got my Eagle Scout in 2001, and am now an assistant scoutmaster in my troop. I have herad it said a few times that “by the books” atheists are not allowed to join, but it has never happened. We have one kid in my troop now who says he worships Satan. We have never told anyone what to believe.
Some people involved in the boyscouts, might be talking like that, but please do not say that we all are like that.
I just want to say that I think you might be telling a lie. I was a boy scout all my life. I joined cub scouts in 1st grade, and stayed through, got my Eagle Scout in 2001, and am now an assistant scoutmaster in my troop. I have herad it said a few times that “by the books” atheists are not allowed to join, but it has never happened. We have one kid in my troop now who says he worships Satan. We have never told anyone what to believe.
Some people involved in the boyscouts, might be talking like that, but please do not say that we all are like that.
From what I have noticed Der Trihs’ broad declarations very frequently are supported by evidence and/or coherent logic.
The contradictory statements I find prove the bible errant. The wanton errancy thereby makes the bible far less than sufficient evidence back up the claims of miracles and divine characters contained within. This demonstrates that belief in Christianity is irrational. I point out (cherry pick if you will) the hateful things in the bible (of which the examples are so numerous as to not be easily counted) to emphasis the point that Christianity is not nearly so loving as its proponents would have us believe. I think all superstition is bad but Christianity is particularly vile. So vile that most Christians do all they can to distance themselves from what is actually said in their own rule book.
The only way to win (if you can call it that) is not to play at all. Christian beliefs/faith, whether fundamentalist or liberal, can not be reasonably argued. All Christian arguments fail, their adherents persist because they are either too proud to admit it or lack the cognitive abilities to realize it.
Oh, I hope that you get over yourself & surrender Yahweh/Jesus when finally confronted by Them- I’m just admitting that it’ll be kinda fun to see you break down then.
Just like I am sure you would enjoy the sight of us C’tians realizing we’d been had if God/the Afterlife turns out totally different than what we expected.
And you know as well as I what my source for the external absolutes are-
the Old & New Testaments, which I will admit we who believe them do not
perfectly understand nor perfectly keep those parts which are quite understandable. Where I would nuance some aspects, God probably intends them to be more absolute. Where you would regard them as absolutist, God probably intends them to be more nuanced, which is why the Synagogue & the Church needs to continually study & continually discuss the Scriptures, so as strive to discern God’s Will