30 Nov 14
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadOriginally posted by twhitehead in reply to josephw Thread 161626 (Page 7)
In other words, you expect me to be 'an earnest skeptic seeking answers' whilst you sit there dishing out those answers? Sorry, not going to happen.
I am open to listening to you only on the condition that you are open to listening to me. The conversation must a be a two way street.
I do give a damn about my destiny, just as you do. I just happen to have d ...[text shortened]... g to be. Why do you assume that just because I believe differently from you, I do not care about it?
"All theists hold positions that I disagree with. I do not judge them all identically. You are correct that we know very little about Grampy, mostly because he reveals very little about himself..."
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"twhitehead, what would you personally like to know about me?"
Originally posted by twhitehead
"I would simply like you to answer questions when asked. I am sure that if you actually participated in conversations, then we would get to know you."
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (Page 8)
"twhitehead, since you've been reluctant to pose a few biographical questions out of respect for my online privacy, here are a few facts some of which may have been posted on these forums since July, 2007. Please realize that I want you to have a sense of my background and frames of reference for the sake of dispelling any hearsay with the hope you'll be at ease.
1) Born between War II and the Korean Conflict in a Boston suburb hospital to parents with Swedish Ancestral Lineage; 2) I'm the eldest of five children with one sister and three brothers; 3) Active..."
___________________________________________________
Originally posted by twhitehead
"In other words, you expect me to be 'an earnest skeptic seeking answers' whilst you sit there dishing out those answers? Sorry, not going to happen.
I am open to listening to you only on the condition that you are open to listening to me..."
Hoped [not 'expected'] you were "'an earnest skeptic seeking answers'".
Still listening, twhitehead, for any and all on topic comments or questions you may have. Fire away.
Be back late Monday.
Originally posted by AgergThe problem with flying spaghetti monsters and invisible pink unicorns is that they aren't convincing to anyone other than hard atheists. I think there's a category error. Religious beliefs didn't spring up overnight, they have ancient histories. Christianity represents a reinterpretation of the old Hebrew religion, it wasn't starting with a completely new set of ideas about God. The history of religious thought goes back to before civilization. So while they might work as an argument against Scientology (I don't know what their tenets are), which was invented by L.Ron Hubbard ("I'm going to start a religion - that's where the money is!" ), they won't work against religions with histories that go back over millennia. There's a continuity of belief that needs some explanation. Why do religions not die out the first time anything goes wrong? Also the imagery is all wrong, to survive a religion needs a focus of belief that is more impressive than pasta.
Well firstly, the flying spaghetti monster isn't an argument, it is a deity. Moreover, its status as a deity is unaffected by the number of people that believe in it currently.
Secondly, as per my previous post you have made the following dubious argument:[quote]The argument for a creator [b]God being who brought into existence all that exists, is suppo ...[text shortened]... nd other such devices as analogies, they aren't meant to look the same - merely behave the same.[/b]
30 Nov 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI am not particularly interested in details of your personal life. I would like to hear your responses to thread related topics as and when they come up.
Still listening, twhitehead, for any and all on topic comments or questions you may have. Fire away.
Be back late Monday.
You have so far not acknowledged that you have understood the content of my first post in this thread. Do you understand it? Do you need clarification?
Originally posted by DeepThoughtHard atheists find them convincing? I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
The problem with flying spaghetti monsters and invisible pink unicorns is that they aren't convincing to anyone other than hard atheists.
So while they might work as an argument against Scientology (I don't know what their tenets are), which was invented by L.Ron Hubbard ("I'm going to start a religion - that's where the money is!" ), they won't work against religions with histories that go back over millennia.
They work perfectly well in many instances. It seems to me that you have totally misunderstood the purpose of them as have several other posters in this thread.
There's a continuity of belief that needs some explanation.
Maybe it does, if the question is being asked. It isn't.
Why do religions not die out the first time anything goes wrong?
That can be asked of Scientology too by the way.
Also the imagery is all wrong, to survive a religion needs a focus of belief that is more impressive than pasta.
But that is the whole point. If a theist puts forward an argument that works equally well for their God and the spaghetti monster, then there is something wrong with their argument. They purpose of the exercise is to point out that the particular argument is therefore flawed. There is no intent to start a religion, nor disprove the existence of God. The correct response is to either retract the argument in question or explain why it does not apply equally well to the spaghetti monster.
In fact, the reason Suzzy felt insulted is she suddenly realized that the arguments she has for God, work equally well for the IPU. That made her feel that her religion is just as ridiculous as the IPU. But her response was the wrong one. Instead of accusing me of insulting her religion, she should point out in what ways here religion is different from IPU worship. If she can do so, then well and good. If she can't, then she has just insulted herself.
30 Nov 14
Originally posted by SuzianneMy point was that it is absurd to claim that Christianity is not a religion.
Of course they are religions. God worship of any kind must be considered a religion. To use this definition as a reason to bash them IS ridiculous. It is you and people like you, who bash ALL religions AND the people who believe in them, by using a term like 'religionists' as a term of degradation, who are living in the dark ages.
30 Nov 14
Originally posted by SuzianneWhat I said was that the sheer strength of conviction in his own beliefs appears to have shed him of his ability to recognize the nature of disbelief.
Maybe you could ask FMF why he considers GB 'disabled', merely for not believing as he does?
30 Nov 14
Originally posted by SuzianneDo you think Grampy Bobby is referring to the God of Jews and Muslims, as well as Christians, when he says "there is only one God"? WHo are "the most narrow-minded of believers" in this community?
And there are millions of Christians and non-Christians alike who DO believe in the EXACT same 'God of Abraham' BY NECESSITY.
Of course they believe in only one God, because there IS only one God.
It is only the most narrow-minded of believers who believe they are not one and the same God. You will find these people among the Christians, the Jews and ...[text shortened]... slims. Narrow-mindedness does not belong to only one religion, or even only to religion at all.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtFor the reason which they are used they don't need to be convincing to anybody - there is no category error here. If Alice were to argue that 39
The problem with flying spaghetti monsters and invisible pink unicorns is that they aren't convincing to anyone other than hard atheists. I think there's a category error. Religious beliefs didn't spring up overnight, they have ancient histories. Christianity represents a reinterpretation of the old Hebrew religion, it wasn't starting with a completel ...[text shortened]... is all wrong, to survive a religion needs a focus of belief that is more impressive than pasta.
purposely not choosing 37 btw
is the best number between 1-100 because it is odd, and less than 50 then Bob would need no person to believe that 9 is the best such number before putting it forward as a counter-example - and showing Alice her argument is wrong. The FSM, IPU, etc... are used in exactly the same way. Indeed the very post you quoted here contains a fallacious argument from josephw that all that exists is proof of his god - and some other god-type thing (i.e. one which he does not believe to exist) serves very well to show that argument is rubbish. I acknowledge the history behind the likes of Christianity and the other monotheistic religions but this does not have any real bearing on the issue here.
If people were, as Suzianne, and joseph in the post immediately after the one you quoted here, suggest trying to disprove Christian "God" by appealing to the FSM then that would be a different story and the argument you bring to bear here would be right on target. However that is not really the case - these devices are being used only to parry poor arguments in defence of said god.
Beyond the confines of this forum, they are sometimes used for other purposes, for example pointing out the dubiously special treatment afforded to those of a religious persuasion, but typically that is not there usage here.
Originally posted by SuzianneSorry Suzianne, but your definition of "deity" is just wrong. Firstly this definition is not supported by any of the common dictionary definitions, but secondly, given that I am just as sure that your "God" does not exist as you are sure "H"e does, then by your reckoning I am entitled to say that your God is not a deity either. Or do you perhaps have some sort of special pleading which might work in your favour!??
No, it's not a 'deity'. It doesn't exist.
By claiming that it does, and therefore IS a 'deity', even if no one worships it, is insulting to our God and therefore to us.
And no, there is no equal, or even similar, 'structure', even 'cosmetically'. To assume there is, yes, that's also an insult.
And I know this is hard for you 'logicians' to unders ...[text shortened]... im. You can't logically 'demean' yourselves to consider a being more 'perfect' than yourselves.
As for insulting, would it also be insulting if I claimed your god's favourite colour is not *your* favourite colour!? How about if I said I prefer the Islamic concept of your god - would you be insulted then!?? How about if I say that you peddling nonsense about the return of of Satan in our lifetimes, or better, jumping to the defence of crappy arguments just because the people making them are Christians is offensive to me - would you then stand down and change your ways!? ... no of course you won't!
To be honest you can fire out as many "saying x about my god insults me" canards as you want and they'll have no effect, I have enough about me to know what really is insulting and what is just crying needlessly. If I point out that something you think holds as a watertight argument for your X is a load of bull because of Y, then if that upsets you boohoo. Come up with something better and you might not be so insulted next time.
As for us logicians (no hint of sarcasm there then - even though we tend to kick your, and other dubiously "moderate", or plain creationist Christian arses when it comes to logic), the reason perhaps we cannot believe in "H"im is that the conception of "H"im is ludicrous, and we cannot believe in things we think are insane (eternal hell, cataclysmic battles on the plains of Megido, talking snakes and magical gardens anyone!??)
30 Nov 14
Originally posted by CalJust re Little Pink UnicornsSorry Cal - cant agree there; they are equal beliefs,
.
So to claim that they MAY be equal beliefs, is insulting.
that is a fact, they are both creations which require
belief because they cannot be proved (or disproved).
Perhaps you would feel less insulted if he spoke of Zeus or Thor?
I doubt it - but many thousands would have had a deep
belief in those deities - are they more acceptable as analogies?
Originally posted by wolfgang59Thanks Wolfgang for pointing this out, and after reading twhitehead's explanations, I must agree that it was not intended to be insulting, but an artefact of the debate.
Sorry Cal - cant agree there; they are equal beliefs,
that is a fact, they are both creations which require
belief because they cannot be proved (or disproved).
Perhaps you would feel less insulted if he spoke of Zeus or Thor?
I doubt it - but many thousands would have had a deep
belief in those deities - are they more acceptable as analogies?
Let me pick up this point, and also one that agerg made - trying to answer the issue raised by inventing the IPU.
Let me hypothesize that twhitehead REALLY AND TRULY believed in the IPU. The reasons for this don't matter, because individual reaons can be challenged and dismissed. For example, he could have had a Vision in the Night, or a Writing on the Wall, or an Answered Prayer, or whatever. The situation that I am postulating is that he DID have a real, religious experience which made him believe in the IPU.
If you were to attack the individual reasons he has for his belief, it would be like unpicking the strands in a basket. One or two won't matter, but sooner or later the basket unravels. This is what I believe the tactic is of some of the attacks against any religion.
But back to twhitehead and his IPU. I would suggest ( and this is my personal position) that if he according to his own testimony had this religious experience, which connected him with the divine, I would respect that view.
Of course, there are those who would recommend him for an extended stay in the looney bin. My suggestion would be that additional observation would be necessary, and if everything else seems normal, then maybe some leeway could be extended.
An issue to watch closely (vis a vie the looney bin) was whether twhitehead was prepared to keep his "vision" quiet and personal or not. If, on the other hand he now wanted to convert everybody to believe in his IPU, that would be a different matter, especially if said non-conversion were to be followed by some dire and eternal punishment from the IPU.
A quick aside to Suzy and some others who felt very offended by some points made by FMF and twhitehead, amongst others. The old saying goes that a person with an experience is never at the mercy of a person with an argument. If she (or anybody else) had a valid religious experience, they need never fear anybody's mocking, criticism or denigration! It all just depends on how sure you are of your position- and if there is a valid argument on any subject, that one is not afraid to persue it.