18 Nov 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyWell it sounds like a good teaching method. However, if you think that you are employing it, you are sadly mistaken. As I said, you act like you are totally deaf, you ask flawed questions, ignore the responses, then ask the question again flaws and all, usually simply reposted word for word. This is clearly quite different from Socratic teaching.
Did Socrates get it right?
You also do not answer most questions asked of you - so you are not trying to learn from the Socratic system either.
18 Nov 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyDo you think that maybe this feeling of uneasiness is blinding your judgement as to whether there is a god or not? That you want that warm blanket so badly, that even if the truth was that there is no god, that you couldn't see it - or reject it, counsciously or sub-counsciously?
"Do you think that what he's saying here - if true - is problematic?" -GKR
[b]"If there is no God... "
With Wilson's thesis, antithesis, synthesis and tentative conclusion... Yep, as long as Great King Rat doesn't lose the "If".[/b]
18 Nov 13
Originally posted by Great King Rat"Do you think that what he's saying here - if true - is problematic?" - Great King Rat
"Do you think that what he's saying here - [b]if true - is problematic?"
Well, duh, ofcourse "if"! I mean, the idea of god being a manmade construct! Pff! Ridiculous![/b]
"Well, duh, ofcourse "if"! I mean, the idea of god being a manmade construct! Pff! Ridiculous!" -Great King Rat
Mister Great King Rat, I'm enjoying listening to your conversation.
18 Nov 13
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby"Conversation is a form of interactive, spontaneous communication between two or more people who are following rules of etiquette." (Wikipedia).
"Do you think that what he's saying here - [b]if true - is problematic?" - Great King Rat
"Well, duh, ofcourse "if"! I mean, the idea of god being a manmade construct! Pff! Ridiculous!" -Great King Rat
Mister Great King Rat, I'm enjoying listening to your conversation.[/b]
Do you enjoy "listening to my conversation" (apparently with somebody else then) or do enjoy "having a conversation with me"?
18 Nov 13
Originally posted by Great King RatFlawed premise in ascribing "this feeling of uneasiness is blinding your judgement as to whether there is a god or not? That you want that warm blanket so badly, that even if the truth was that there is no god, that you couldn't see it - or reject it, counsciously or sub-counsciously" to me. By faith alone in Christ alone my temporal life and eternal destiny is secure in Him.
Do you think that maybe this feeling of uneasiness is blinding your judgement as to whether there is a god or not? That you want that warm blanket so badly, that even [b]if the truth was that there is no god, that you couldn't see it - or reject it, counsciously or sub-counsciously?[/b]
______________________________________________________
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis
"Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important." -C.S. Lewis
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'" -C.S. Lewis
"God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself, because it is not there. There is no such thing." -C.S. Lewis
18 Nov 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadtwhitehead, are my weak eyes overlooking a question or do these words represent an interesting footnote side bar?
Well it sounds like a good teaching method. However, if you think that you are employing it, you are sadly mistaken. As I said, you act like you are totally deaf, you ask flawed questions, ignore the responses, then ask the question again flaws and all, usually simply reposted word for word. This is clearly quite different from Socratic teaching.
You als ...[text shortened]... er most questions asked of you - so you are not trying to learn from the Socratic system either.
18 Nov 13
1 edit
Originally posted by Great King RatJesting, my friend. Lightening the mood. Errands to run (I mean, walk and taxi); see you later this afternoon.
"Conversation is a form of interactive, spontaneous communication between [b]two or more people who are following rules of etiquette." (Wikipedia).
Do you enjoy "listening to my conversation" (apparently with somebody else then) or do enjoy "having a conversation with me"?[/b]
Edit: "Lightening The Mood. Submitted by Meredith. Share More. What does "Let's lighten up the mood." mean? - Learn English - italki ... www.italki.com › Answers › English #8206; Dec 15, 2011 - It means to put two light bulbs in each one of your ears and then go walk across Mood City... =D Just joking, don't kill me... ^^ Actually, the real ..." lol
18 Nov 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI no longer bother to ask you questions because you generally do not answer them so simply take it as criticism of your behaviour on this forum. Its a pity you behave that way because you do sometimes start threads with interesting topics, but then you ruin them.
twhitehead, are my weak eyes overlooking a question or do these words represent an interesting footnote side bar?
18 Nov 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadSuccinctly, what are your top three questions?
I no longer bother to ask you questions because you generally do not answer them so simply take it as criticism of your behaviour on this forum. Its a pity you behave that way because you do sometimes start threads with interesting topics, but then you ruin them.
18 Nov 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI am afraid I have not kept a list. So let me stick with the topic of the thread: googlefudge did an excelent job of showing that the people quoted in your OP got it all wrong - and quite obviously so in most cases. So my questions to you are:
Succinctly, what are your top three questions?
Do you think they got it wrong? What did you think when you started the thread, and what do you think after reading googlefudges response?
18 Nov 13
Originally posted by twhitehead"So my questions to you are:
I am afraid I have not kept a list. So let me stick with the topic of the thread: googlefudge did an excelent job of showing that the people quoted in your OP got it all wrong - and quite obviously so in most cases. So my questions to you are:
Do you think they got it wrong? What did you think when you started the thread, and what do you think after reading googlefudges response?
Do you think they got it wrong? [No.] What did you think when you started the thread, [Motive was to enable intelligent, published authors to present the summary findings and conclusions of their life long endeavors to apprehend absolute truth to us in absentia. Why? To stimulate fresh thinking and to elevate this forum's discussion to a higher plane (than trite repetitiveness and personality attack).] and what do you think after reading googlefudge's response? [googlefudge has in depth experience in several disciplines along with well established points of view. I hoped he would entertain new options.]"
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
19 Nov 13
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbySee this is my problem with this...
"So my questions to you are:
Do you think they got it wrong? [No.] What did you think when you started the thread, [Motive was to enable intelligent, published authors to present the summary findings and conclusions of their life long endeavors to apprehend absolute truth to us in absentia. Why? To stimulate fresh thinking and to elevate this forum' ...[text shortened]... isciplines along with well established points of view. I hoped he would entertain new options.]"
You say that you want to "stimulate fresh thinking...
And you want me to "entertain new options"...
And yet you post tired old quotes by people asking that same dumb questions and
misconceptions (and in some cases outright lies) that theists have been coming
up with for centuries.
I have to ask... Did you genuinely believe that ANY of the quotes you posted in
your OP contained any thought, or question, that those of us atheists who are interested
in debating these issues haven't heard a thousand times before?
And even though these thoughts of others you quoted are tired and old I DID entertain
them. I took the time to carefully go through them, think about them, and come up with
arguments for why they were wrong. You are welcome to disagree with my arguments
and you can propose counter arguments of your own.
But it's rather hypocritical of you to claim I didn't think about them after I took the time
to not only think about them (again) and produce rebuttals.
When you have not only failed to acknowledge my arguments, you didn't even bother to read
them and then claimed I had just dismissed your points out of hand.
That's YOUR M.O. not mine.
You are not the 'teacher' here, we are on this forum, equals.
If you want to have a 'conversation' then you need to stop acting like you are a teacher dispensing
wisdom, and engage.
You do on occasion start threads with interesting topics.
You then kill them. [EDIT: 'them' here being the conversation... just wanting to be ultra clear.]
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
19 Nov 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThis argument basically boils down to ...
[b]Did Wilson get it right?
"If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means ...[text shortened]... ankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water.[/i] And nothing else." -Douglas Wilson[/b]
"I think it would suck if god didn't exist. Therefore I will believe that god exists."
An argument William Lane Craig is very fond of.
To me, whenever I see this argument I hear...
"I want to believe what makes me feel good regardless of whether its true or not."
My position is that there is no requirement on reality that it not suck.
Sometimes the truth sucks, [sometimes it's awesome] and the difference between
you and me is that I care what the truth is regardless of whether or not the truth
is what I would like it to be.
It would really suck to be told that you have advanced and untreatable cancer and
that you were going to die in a matter of weeks or months... Probably in a great deal
of pain. But the fact that it would suck to find out I was dying of cancer is irrelevant
to whether or not it was true.
Now I am perfectly happy and able to find meaning in a universe with no gods, nothing
Wilson says troubles me...
The fact that I know that my enjoyment of good food is simply a bunch of chemistry and
physics going on in my brain doesn't stop me enjoying the food.
But if I were troubled by a universe with no gods and say that I were to believe in gods
simply because I found the alternative tasteful then I would be announcing that I
no longer cared about finding the truth.
And that is exactly what anyone who uses this argument is saying.
Religion is their comfort blanket they huddle up with because they can't face up to a reality
that isn't as they would want it to be.
You say that a world without god would suck.
I say so what? That makes no difference to whether it's true or not.