Sticking it to Theists - Page 34

thomastwo · 03-30-2010, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Kate wrote

No, I'm "beating you" with a "don't make over-reaching arguments" stick.

lostsheep · 03-30-2010, 09:31 PM

Quote:

thomastwo wrote

Quite the opposite. I don't think that humans are capable of consistent rational thought free of prejudice and confirmation bias. I think anybody who claims their positions are the pure product of rational thought are the most deluded.

We're all scrambling around in the dark reaching for vague truths.

Hmmmm....wonder if that's true....

Choobus · 03-30-2010, 10:35 PM

Quote:

thomastwo wrote

I think anybody who claims their positions are the pure product of rational thought are the most deluded.
.

people who claim their positions are the product of divine intervention win that prize every time

thomastwo · 03-30-2010, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Choobus wrote

people who claim their positions are the product of divine intervention win that prize every time

If they are certain that they are correct then I agree that they are equally as deluded as those who think their positions can be reached only through rational thought.

It's the certainty that is the delusion.

Mog · 03-30-2010, 11:59 PM

Quote:

thomastwo wrote

If they are certain that they are correct then I agree that they are equally as deluded as those who think their positions can be reached only through rational thought.

It's the certainty that is the delusion.

Are you certain of that?

Sternwallow · 03-31-2010, 05:18 AM

Quote:

thomastwo wrote

Quote:

Sternwallow wrote

In this case, unlike the top brass of, say, a petroleum industry, there should not be a single dissenter. If God is real, there should not be even one purveyor of His word who did not believe it and yet continued promoting what he knew was a big fat lie. These are people who have been "called by God" to the priesthood.

Why should there not be a single such person? Do you have a reason?

Theists claim that God is, among other unlikely things, truth. If He intends to convey messages to us and, for some unfathomable reason, He must do it through fallible human spokesmen, He must ensure that the message they present is not a lie. Otherwise the effect is of God, Himself, lying to us. While the Bible is rife with instances of God lying, a lying God is contrary to the beliefs of most Christians. Therefore, there should not be a single lie told by a God-chosen priest or other inspired representative. "You must trust him, he's a 'man of the cloth'".

Further, the Bible itself, if it is indeed messages from God to humanity, must not contain lies if God is to be believed. But it does so He shouldn't.

Quote:

Sternwallow wrote

I am not astonished because there is no sentient "Creator of the Universe" (or it was made by a being leaving no hint of a deliberate plan). What believers should be astonished at is emissaries from the one true God spreading lies about it while not believing their own hooey. If not astonished, they should be ashamed for gullibly accepting the lies.

Why should believers be astonished? What I'm astonished by is that you don't understand that an assertion is not an argument.

Believers should be astonished because they have been taught that God and His representatives are uniformly truthful yet here are priests, and by implication God Himself, telling them falsehoods. They should be astonished at being hoodwinked.

Why must I prove an assertion that is so well known as is the existence of priests who continue to preach while not believing what they say?

Quote:

Sternwallow wrote

I am not making formal statistical claims about percentages of clergy frauds. Just as, in some activity, a single death is too many, a single lying bastard among priests is too many.

The scores of them show up on "faithless preachers" lists on various blogs. And no, I don't keep records of all the sites I visit so you will have to stumble over them yourself just as I did.

Ah, so you have evidence but you forgot where you put it? How very convenient. Excuse me if I apply your reasoning and choose not to believe your unfounded assertions.

By all means, I have said many times, I am not here to convince you or anyone of anything (and I do not go out of my way, as you have by invading our "club", to thrust my position on anyone else). So do NOT take my word for anything. You have access to much of the same data that I do.

Quote:

Sternwallow wrote

I refer to Mother Theresa's confession of continuing to preach her swill, at the behest of the Church, even after losing her faith.

I'm not aware of that confession. What's the reference?

The reference is to her letters detailing some 50 years of outright lying and doing so with encouragement from the Church. "It was in all the papers". I guess you don't get out much.

Quote:

Sternwallow wrote

If you do not believe that Jesus is still active (if he ever was), you are honor-bound to keep your trap shut about Him and anything to do with Him.

I agree with you. However as the study points out the loss of a livelihood is a powerful incentive to dissemble.

And yet we are told that, in the old days, apostles willingly went to their deaths rather than lie about their belief in God. Why has God's ability to choose truthful messengers back then failed Him recently?

Quote:

Sternwallow wrote

In response to the many-gods problem, someone recently offered the "counterfeit money" argument about gods; "does the existence of counterfeit money invalidate the truth and genuineness of the real thing?" The presumed answer is no.

The question is faulty. If there was only one real authentic bill among all of the thousands of counterfeits, its reality would be irrelevant as you could not reasonably expect to ever handle it and so would have no reason to believe that there was one. So it is with ten thousand+ gods. At most there might be one that was true and not just a man-made fiction, but they are randomly distributed so, again, you cannot reasonably expect to even have heard of the true one if there is a true one.

I don't think you've really explained exactly what you think the many-gods problem actually is?

The many gods problem has to do with a very few exceptions to a general rule defeating that rule.

Concerning ten thousand gods, the lack of a way to reliably spot the real one, if there even is a real one, is sufficient reason not to believe in any specific god. They are randomly distributed and your probability of picking the right one is, at best, 1/10000. Having more and more gods does not improve the probability that one of them is real.

In the counterfeit bills analogy (with only one real bill), inaccessibility of the real bill spoils its value. If you happened, by chance, to have the real bill, it is reasonable to treat it as counterfeit because the entire currency will be treated as worthless counterfeit.

Similarly, in the current conversation, it is a few, or only one, lying priest, where the implication of the truth of God's message is that there can be none regardless of how many completely truthful priests there might be or might have been in the past.

So, when my priest tells me that "Jesus has prepared a table before you". I am constrained to ask him exactly why I should believe that when priests are known to lie, both by not believing what they say and by "pious fraud".

Sternwallow · 03-31-2010, 05:20 AM

Quote:

thomastwo wrote

Quite the opposite. I don't think that humans are capable of consistent rational thought free of prejudice and confirmation bias. I think anybody who claims their positions are the pure product of rational thought are the most deluded.

We're all scrambling around in the dark reaching for vague truths.

On what basis do you claim that the truths we seek are vague or difficult to find? Just another unsupported assertion on your part?

thomastwo · 03-31-2010, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Mog wrote

Are you certain of that?

No, but I think it's plausible.

Captain Relativity · 03-31-2010, 07:28 AM

Quote:

thomastwo wrote

No, but I think it's plausible.

Plausible? Oh ye of little faith.
Perhaps you should be called Mustard Seed Boy - MSB - instead of t2.

thomastwo · 03-31-2010, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Sternwallow wrote

Theists claim that God is, among other unlikely things, truth. If He intends to convey messages to us and, for some unfathomable reason, He must do it through fallible human spokesmen, He must ensure that the message they present is not a lie. Otherwise the effect is of God, Himself, lying to us. While the Bible is rife with instances of God lying, a lying God is contrary to the beliefs of most Christians. Therefore, there should not be a single lie told by a God-chosen priest or other inspired representative. "You must trust him, he's a 'man of the cloth'".

Further, the Bible itself, if it is indeed messages from God to humanity, must not contain lies if God is to be believed. But it does so He shouldn't.
Believers should be astonished because they have been taught that God and His representatives are uniformly truthful yet here are priests, and by implication God Himself, telling them falsehoods. They should be astonished at being hoodwinked.

Search the Bible for the phrase "false prophet". Perhaps with some knowledge you would not make such a false argument?

Quote:

Sternwallow wrote

Why must I prove an assertion that is so well known as is the existence of priests who continue to preach while not believing what they say?

You don't have to prove it unless you actually want to show that your assertions have a foundation in data. I thought that was your atheist way of thinking, so assumed that you would have the data to hand. Obviously not. Perhaps you are not so rational as you would think in reaching your conclusions?

Quote:

Sternwallow wrote

By all means, I have said many times, I am not here to convince you or anyone of anything (and I do not go out of my way, as you have by invading our "club", to thrust my position on anyone else). So do NOT take my word for anything. You have access to much of the same data that I do.

I'm not invading anybodies club. I'm posting on an open internet forum. One that encourages theists to post by having sections such as "atheist vs theist". Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

In this case I don't know to which data you are referring. But surely a rational, skeptical thinker like you would have to have data to back up an assertion?

Quote:

Sternwallow wrote

The reference is to her letters detailing some 50 years of outright lying and doing so with encouragement from the Church. "It was in all the papers". I guess you don't get out much.

So, you don't have a reference then? Too bad.

Quote:

Sternwallow wrote

And yet we are told that, in the old days, apostles willingly went to their deaths rather than lie about their belief in God. Why has God's ability to choose truthful messengers back then failed Him recently?

Refer back to the earlier reference in this post to the prediction and warnings in the Bible concerning false prophets. It's no surprise and no astonishment on my part or yours is required.

Quote:

Sternwallow wrote

The many gods problem has to do with a very few exceptions to a general rule defeating that rule.

Concerning ten thousand gods, the lack of a way to reliably spot the real one, if there even is a real one, is sufficient reason not to believe in any specific god. They are randomly distributed and your probability of picking the right one is, at best, 1/10000. Having more and more gods does not improve the probability that one of them is real.

Is the ability to pick the correct answer predicated on the number of possible answers? Why so? Surely the only issue is determining the criteria to be applied?

Quote:

Sternwallow wrote

In the counterfeit bills analogy (with only one real bill), inaccessibility of the real bill spoils its value. If you happened, by chance, to have the real bill, it is reasonable to treat it as counterfeit because the entire currency will be treated as worthless counterfeit.

The ability to recognize the non-counterfeit is only determined by the specification of the particular piece of currency. A bill either meets the criteria and is genuine or it doesn't and it isn't.

The value of such a piece of currency in a large population of counterfeits is irrelevant to the argument that such a piece of currency can not be reliably detected as you claim.

Quote:

Sternwallow wrote

Similarly, in the current conversation, it is a few, or only one, lying priest, where the implication of the truth of God's message is that there can be none regardless of how many completely truthful priests there might be or might have been in the past.

So, when my priest tells me that "Jesus has prepared a table before you". I am constrained to ask him exactly why I should believe that when priests are known to lie, both by not believing what they say and by "pious fraud".

Both this problem and it's solution are presented in the Bible. Read it.

thomastwo · 03-31-2010, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Captain Relativity wrote

Plausible? Oh ye of little faith.
Perhaps you should be called Mustard Seed Boy - MSB - instead of t2.

What?

thomastwo · 03-31-2010, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Sternwallow wrote

On what basis do you claim that the truths we seek are vague or difficult to find? Just another unsupported assertion on your part?

I already answered that in the post. Humans find it difficult to free themselves from predjudice and confirmation bias. Therefore arriving at truth through rational thought is extremely difficult.

Irreligious · 03-31-2010, 07:54 AM

As usual, it is the Christian here who is spouting certainties, while the atheists express skepticism. Nothing's changed.

nkb · 03-31-2010, 08:02 AM

Quote:

thomastwo wrote

So, you don't have a reference then? Too bad.

Come on, dude. Seriously? You can't do a simple Google search?

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...655415,00.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3199062.shtml

Quote:

CBS News wrote

According to her letters, Mother Teresa died with her doubts. She had even stopped praying, she once said.

thomastwo · 03-31-2010, 09:25 AM

Quote:

nkb wrote

Come on, dude. Seriously? You can't do a simple Google search?

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...655415,00.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3199062.shtml

Oh, I know about Mother Theresa's well publicised doubts, but I was looking for evidence that she "peddled her story (with the backing of the Church to continue spreading her lies) even when she believed none of it?".

I've not seen any evidence that she "believed none of it", only that she ceased to experience what she had previously experienced.

Surely we can be confident that arch-rationalist Stern would have the evidence to hand to back up his belief.