I thought Lord Ashtar was referring to badchad, but what’s with these diagnoses of mental illness? Isn’t it adequate just to say “hey, I think you’re completely wrong about that” ?
Oh, that was just a riff on the word “sick” in the post that p-r-r quoted.
Well, let’s assume that’s true (I’m neither entirely convinced of that, nor am I sufficiently egotistical to think that a direct response to my post would necessarily refer to me rather than to badchad)–is **badchad ** a troll? Not according to Tom, supposedly, although people are tossing around that accusation quite freely, despite a Mod’s explicit declaration that, despite his own pissed-off and intemperate frustration, he can’t quite make thhat charge stick. Much less is **badchad ** an “admitted troll.”
This is only worth pointing out because if you let enough deliberately false misstatements stand, eventually they come to be accepted as true. Lord Ashtar’s deliberate mischaracterizations of posters are, to me, an obvious sign of bad faith and an inherently dishonest ad hominem debating tactic, not that I expect him to be admonished for dishonesty or anything.
OK… I only mentioned it because, as you say, there are plenty of accusations (albeit perhaps false) of trollery pointed at badchad (including some, I think, to the effect that he has admitted trollery), whereas I am not aware of any such accusations levelled at yourself, furthermore, It seemed that if anyone could be said to be ‘baiting’ Tom, it would more likely be badchad than yourself, therefore it seemed to me that the ‘being baited by an admitted troll’ statement (however false or unjustified it may be) was referring to badchad. That’s all.
No doubt in stating his entirely cogent argument in which badchad uses the IPU as an example, he is contending for a position. And it is a position that opposes yours, so I guess he is being contentious. By stating so, do you think you are making a relevant point? I can’t think what it might be, personally.
I think badchad is critiquing the religious contention, viz that there is a god, not proposing the characteristics that a god might have. I think the key point is that in the absence of any understanding of what effects the phenomena one proposes might have, no matter what happens that will never falsify the contention.
There are infinite unfalsifiable contentions available, but religious people don’t believe in all of them. Why not?
I don’t understand this paragraph. How does stating (probably correctly) badchad’s position on a point answer his question as to yours?
Sorry, that sentence in the middle of my last post should be:
"I think the key point is that in the absence of any understanding of what effects are incompatible with the phenomena for which one contends, no matter what happens that will never falsify the contention.
badchad, just out of curiosity, what’s your take on Pascal’s wager?
Apologies if you’ve covered this in the past.
Oh no, I wasn’t ragging on badchad for being contentious. The point I was making was that the deist view of God is something that has been arrived at in an attempt to understand certain aspects of the nature of humans, the Universe, the unknown, and so on… whereas the IPU is something that has been made up simply to be ridiculous. The idea is that since X cannot be proven to exist any more than Y can, and Y is patently ridiculous, therefore X is patently ridiculous - an argument that need only be stated explicitly in order to be shown to be foolish.
No, badchad was quite specifically talking about what he perceives as the weakness of Christian theology at this point. Take another look.
Well, gosh and golly, I dunno, maybe because the mere fact of unfalsifiability doesn’t make it an object of belief?
Well, I rather suppose badchad either expected me to hang my head in shame for the unefficacy of prayer, or else to post something wise about the ineffability of the Divine will, or something. But since one instance of correlation either way wouldn’t prove anything about causation, I was a little puzzled that he’d seem to be taking a position that dishonestly presumed that I thought it did. (Ouch, what a sentence.)
So when, in the context of badchad using the IPU argument, you said the IPU argument was one made up for the sake of being contentious, you weren’t ragging on badchad for being contentious?
I see. There’s probably a subtlety I’m missing.
The IPU is relevant to an argument with someone who has no positive evidence for an unfalsifiable phenomenon, yet thinks it appropriate to believe in that phenomenon but not the IPU.
Indeed he was. But he was not purporting to know what characteristics a god would have, merely pointing out the problems with the characteristics that Christians seem to say their god has. The difficulty with knowing a god of the type Christianity poses is not badchad’s problem: it’s yours.
What does?
Answer the question already.
The motivation behind either really doesn’t matter. It’s the epistemological validity that’s at issue. And, just to add to your formulation, the IPU is made up simply to demonstrate the ridiculousness of a certain type of faith.
An even better formulation, though, would read:
The idea that since X cannot be proven, disproven, or tested in any way, and that Y also cannot be proven, disproven, or tested in any way, there’s no reason to believe in either of them. And especially not one over the other. The fact that believers in X will dismiss Y out of hand as ‘ridiculous’ evinces their irrational bias and points at the correct epistemological method used to make such judgements.
Yes, I called badchad a troll, and I stick by that because the bulk of this thread has been this:
badchad: What are your beliefs, tomndebb?
tomndebb: I don’t discuss beliefs online.
badchad: I bet that’s because they’re irrational. Why won’t you discuss your beliefs with me?
pseudotriton ruber ruber: He he! Burn, dude!
tomndebb: I don’t discuss beliefs online.
badchad: You probably believe in the 6 day creation myth, don’t you?
tomndebb: I don’t discuss beliefs online.
badchad: You’re a coward for not discussing your beliefs with me. Is it because you know in your heart of hearts that I’ll mop the floor with you?
pseudotriton ruber ruber: Oh man! It’s over! badchad wins again!
tomndebb: I don’t discuss beliefs online.
badchad: That’s because you’re an irrational pussy who’s afraid I’ll destroy everything your life is based on. Prove me wrong and discuss your beliefs with me.
tomndebb: I don’t discuss beliefs online.
Repeat ad infinitum.
According to the definition of troll in C K Dexter Haven’s Beginner’s Guide to Glossary of Terms on Straight Dope Message Boards, a troll is “somebody who is posting just to be confrontational or to raise hackles.” badchad has admitted to this several times in this thread alone. Hence me calling him a troll.
There probably is. Maybe it comes of being Australian. The subtlety is a question of attacking the argument and not the arguer. By the way, I said that the unicorn was made up for the sake of being contentious; and I didn’t even accuse badchad of making it up.
I wasn’t talking of relevance. More of this below, since FinnAgain has made a good effort.
Indeed it is. But badchad seemed to be ridiculing the standpoint that one cannot be in a position to know all that God knows, and I offered for consideration that supposing that one would be is even sillier.
Well, that is the question. 
But I don’t necessarily owe you an answer merely in order to rebut your supposition that the believer must necessarily believe everything that isn’t falsifiable.
The question? Do I think a lack of response to a prayer for badchad to be less bitter and hateful would be evidence of the non-efficacy of prayer? Of course not. An isolated instance of correlation does not imply causation. It would falsify the proposition “All prayers are promptly answered with the results asked for”, but I don’t believe anyone was holding that position.
Oh, the motivation matters to an extent - otherwise why pick an invisible pink unicorn? Part of the point is to sneer at believers.
But believers in God dismiss the Invisible Pink Unicorn out of hand as ridiculous because they know very well that the Invisible Pink Unicorn was made up by their interlocutor solely in the interests of being ridiculous. The fact that the existence of the IPU cannot be proven, disproven or tested in any way is rather beside the point - no-one is about to try to prove, disprove or test it, least of all the person who asserts the existence thereof.
I have no problem with people being unapologetically blunt and straightforward. In my criticism of you that’s not the objection.
Thanks for the link. In a few posts Godzillatemple was able to politely and respectfully explain what you have been unable to in dozens of posts. I think it’s a great point.
I think it’s a subtle but important distinction from “my interpretation of the Bible is” and that kind of contention.
I see it as this; rather than saying “I try to follow the teachings of Jesus” at which point you will jump in and say “No you don’t” it is more accurate to say I use some of the words of Jesus in the Bible as a guide and stimulus, for my own moral compass. I find that very freeing and in that it places the responsibility squarely on the individual which is where it should be. It also fits with my own attraction to “the kingdom of heaven is within you”
BTW I also noticed in that other thread you ignored this challenge by one of the most knowledgeable atheists on the SDMB and in this thread ignored this post of my challenging you to defend your own hypocrisy.
In that you continuously criticize others for cherry picking verses to believe in and others to ignore, or call them cowards for ignoring your challenges let me say that this practice by you of cherry picking which challenges you answer and avoiding or ignoring other arguments might make you seem like a gutless pussy of a hypocritical troll. Of course I may be wrong.
I’ve said several times I think you have some good points and a keen mind. If you just can’t see how your technique alienates people from discussing things with you that’s your choice. Personally I think it’s a waste. There is a way to be blunt and tenacious without being an insulting hypocritical prick.
It’s not any iota more of a ‘sneer’ than using Thor, or Zeus, or any other example is. The motivation does not matter if intellectual integrity is your goal, only if you’re looking to take offense. It’s also, if anything, a ‘sneer’ against a belief, not believers.
You are not your beliefs.
And in doing so commit the fallacy of Ad Hominem and display a response that is intellectually dishonest and evasive.
No… that is the point. That and the fact of its logical inconsistency (much like an ‘omnioptent’ God).
One doesn’t have to try to do it… especially since it’s unfalsifiable. It’s hardly fair to expect someone that’s just pointed out a fool’s errand, to embark on that errand. That’s the whole point. It seems like you’re ignoring the clear logical implications and holding unfalsifiable, untestable beliefs… and instead feeling personally attacked because someone has shown one of your beliefs to have no more merit than belief in an IPU.
Well how about the fact that he replied in the affirmative to this:
If you ask me, intentionally doing this is Being A Jerk.
That’s certainly possible. However that leaves us with a quandary. Your arguments, as correct as they are, often get ignored because, it seems, they are too polite, while mine, which are largely the same, are often avoided under the guise of them being too inflammatory. So the question is, what is the optimal way to shake people from their (obvious to us) errant indoctrination?
To do what Jesus taught his followers I would expect him one to drop everything to preach the message of Jesus. On a message board to spend every minute possible witnessing to the word of Jesus and doing anything in one’s power to convince others that it was right to do so. Again this is assuming Tomndebb actually is a caring person and has faith that his beliefs are correct. If, rather, he truly does not care about the eternal souls of others on this message board, or he really does not have much faith that he is correct in his beliefs, then I could understand his cavalier attitude in discussing religious beliefs.
I think what you are hoping to get at is the oft cited claim that so long as one lives a good life then others will see the power of god there. While that might be possible, it is quite certain that Jesus asked for a lot more of his followers, if the gospels are any guide. If the gospels are not assumed an accurate guide, well, you know the argument.
I have admitted I post “just to be confrontational or to raise hackles?”
Cite?
Pascal’s wager fails because it assumes Pascal’s god, the Christian god, is the only one that could be doling out rewards and punishments in the afterlife, assuming there is one. It ignores other possible gods, who might punish or reward one based on totally different or conceivably opposite values than those praised by the Christian god.
For example it could be god’s real name is Allah and when one goes to a Christian church god just gets madder and madder. It could also be that god is a humanist, values reason, and might torture people eternally because they accept things, even his existence, on faith. With all the different god concepts out there one’s bets become a lot less clear than Pascal would have one believe. As Voltaire put it, Pascal was a pretty good mathematician but a piss poor philosopher.
I’m sure you do find that freeing. Your statement then lets you pick and choose whatever you want from Jesus, without claiming to follow him. By the same token you also relegate the status of Jesus down to that of any regular human, which I really don’t think you are comfortable doing, who you could also read as a stimulus to your moral compass. Mien Kampf would help you do the same thing, and is about as loving.
Regarding responding to others. Contrary to what people might have you believe about my debating style curtailing discussion, I am a very popular poster, and many people want to ask me questions. My time is short and I sometimes can not respond to them all. Regarding Sentientmeat’s challenge I don’t know much about basic cosmology and I don’t make it a habit of trying to explain things to others that I don’t feel I’m informed.
Regarding your questions, I was just waiting for you to ask. See, I had just asked you a question or few that you felt you did not need to answer. I think you failed to answer said questions out of a position of weakness, but you did protest otherwise, but still didn’t answer the question. You then think you should be able to ask me questions. Now that I have ignored one, it seems you think I am doing so out of a position of weakness. Yes? Now, while I can assure you this isn’t the case, you can’t press me for an answer, or argue that my failing to answer you was out of a position of weakness, without making a hypocrite of yourself, now can you?
Or in other words, if you want me to answer your questions, I expect you to answer mine. I’ve noticed you theists have found your best defense is to clam up, and while this is in fact your best defense, I’ve had about enough of it.
I’d be lying if I said the feeling was mutual. I think you are a self-contradicting, superstitious, mush brain.