Forum:If I CALL my OPPONENTS smug I'm automatically RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Here in Rational wiki, people ask questions about Christianity and the Bible in an arrogant belief that there is no possible answer... In the talk page I will try to answer as many of them as possible... 1 at a time pls— Unsigned, by: Kingdamian1 / talk / contribs


[edit] It isn't smug

To think that if a question was first raised 100s of years ago and there's been no answer in all that time that there isn't a satisfactory answer. Christopher (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Ask your questions here Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to keep our current conversation on Essay talk:Militant Non-Earthism if you don't mind. Christopher (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I DO MIND... that wasn't the purpose of that essay... ask your stupid questions hereKingdamian1 (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I like the basic idea — strawmen are as common as they are tiresome. And, yes — it takes tremendous skill to even be able to avoid accidental use of strawmen in one's own arguments (and that goes for people on all sides; we're all homo sapiens).
On the other hand, crying wolf "strawman!" at the drop of a pin is just as common, and no less tiresome. When kneejerking the "strawman!" defense, one mustn't forget that one outright denies even the possibility that someone else may — in fact — have understood one's own argument better than oneself has!
So as much as I like your basic idea here (admittedly, as understood with the principle of charityWikipedia's W.svg hard at work!) — isn't it true that framing the questions you yourself specifically request as "smug" and "stupid" is confusing at best and duplicitous at worst?
I mean, do you want intentionally stupid questions (e.g. "How is babby formed??"), or did you mean to signal that you plan to simply dismiss out of hand any questions which raise even the possibility that someone else has atleast some angle that you hadn't yet thought of as being "smug" or "stupid" questions, a priori?
And speaking of "stupid" or "smug" questions — what steps are you taking to safeguard against giving answers gifted with those same two qualities yourself? What's good for the goose is surely good for the gander, wouldn't you say? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that here in rational wiki... every article I create ends up with theological and biblical questions... So here is a talk page to DIRECTLY answer those "unanswerable" questions which you people ask... in an arrogant belief that there is no possible answer--Kingdamian1 (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

But doesn't it come across as rather arrogant in- and of itself to frame the arguments of others as being arrogant per definition?
What am I supposed to give you when you specifically request that I make arrogant arguments?
In other words — to turn the tables momentarily — if I were to hypothetically ask you for your "stupid arguments", which arguments would you provide? Your stupid ones, or the ones you somehow think aren't stupid? How could I even tell which were which?
...See what I mean about arrogance here?
Now, you really are above this sort of thing, Damian — and I think you will agree. Though, perhaps not until your initial sense of provocation (which spawned your "smug questions"-essay to begin with) has been allowed to settle. Understandable if so, considering we're all human. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I AM NOT REFERRING TO QUESTION THEMSELVES... I am referring to the tone... E.g If a child with genuine curiosity asks you the question: if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys... I presume you wouldn't make fun... But if a creationist asked the exact same question you would make fun...

IT's NOT THE QUESTION... ITS THE TONE... here, at rational wiki people ask questions, NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE INTERESTED what Bible says... but because of the arrogant belief that their questions can't be answered... The point is... instead of spamming my other pages with UNRELATED QUESTIONS... ask them HERE!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

That's a strawman of our position. Nowhere do we say we came from monkeys. The reason we ridcule you for asking if we came from monkeys is because your question isn't even wrong. At some point, humanity and primates had a common ancestor. Vive Liberté! 01:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I KNOW THAT.... IT WAS AN ANALOGY... !--Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Can we avoid the inevitable? I'm struggling to see why you would use a broken analogy to make a serious point. Vive Liberté! 01:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

If you have questions about the so called "controversies" in the Bible or Christianity... please, do ask!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Ohhhh fun you've made the distinction of it being the Christian God. Ok ok follow my logic here:
P1) at all times past, present, and future, God must be equally moral
P2) in order to be God, God must be maximally moral. That is, there is nothing more moral than he.
P3) God's morality is not contingent on current human understanding of morality.
P4) God condones slavery.
See which premise presents a problem? A perfectly moral God condoning slavery? Check here and here for lots of verses concerning slavery in the Bible. Vive Liberté! 02:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Bring a SPECIFIC verse here... I can't go and chase some atheist strawmen... BRING A SPECIFIC example HERE!!!! AND also provide moral standard against which this is wrong... As in... What do you base your moral on... when you say God is not moral?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Do your own research. Just kidding. See Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:1-6, Exodus 21:7-11, Exodus 21:20-21, Ephesians 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, Luke 12:47-48, Genesis 17:12, Exodus 12:43, Exodus 21:20, Exodus 21:32, Leviticus 22:10, Luke 7:2, Colossians 3:22, and Titus 2:9. If God doesn't say it's wrong, he's implicitly condoning it. As for a moral standard, until I have some time to think through it all (I'm currently busy with school but I'm graduating high school on the 26th!), I'm currently using secular deontology in the form of Kant's Categorical Imperative. That's what I base my morals on. My premises never claim that God isn't moral; on the contrary, the whole argument rests on the fact that he is moral. Vive Liberté! 03:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

In other words you are stupid... but let's leave that... different verses adress the subject differently... can you bring a SPECIFIC QUOTE and elaborate as to why your feeble mind has problems understanding it.--Kingdamian1 (talk) 06:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

An ad hominem to start the day off right. Now, maybe it's just me, but God telling you how to beat your slaves sounds an awful lot like an him implicitly condoning it, no?
Here's the quote for you since you seem unable to even crack open your own Bible (see I can use ad hominem too!):
"20 When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money."
So now we know that if we beat him within an inch of his life, it's fine. Good to know, good to know. Good thing God doesn't condone this even though he gave these instructions, though. Vive Liberté! 10:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

No... It establishes limits... People in those times went into slaver for 2 reasons... They were bankrupt or they were booty from the war... in which case they should have been grateful they weren't killed... Only in the latter case did beating happen...--Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Ohhhhh I get it. We're saving them! How could I have been so blind?! Well.. um.. well I probably shouldn't mention this but.. No, I'm not going to. I really won't. I promise. Have another quote:
"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)"
I guess this means that if we take the family hostage we can force him into become a slave for life? Good rule to have on hand. It ensures endless free labour too.
Ok I broke. I'm gonna do it. I'm gonna mention it. Exodus 21:7.
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again."
You see why I have problems with the Bible? Let me paraphrase that for you. "When a man sells his daughter as a sex slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as men are because she's a woman and women are second class citizens and have no rights. If she doesn't please the man who bought her, her dad can buy her back, but no matter what you do you can't buy back her innocence because hey, you sold her as a sex slave. Sound like something that should be in the Bible? Sound like something a perfectly just and moral God would say? Nah, I don't think so either. Vive Liberté! 12:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Is this smug?

  • A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought to his steps. (Pr 14:15)
  • It is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor to be hasty and miss the way. (Pr 19:2)
  • Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. (Jn 10:37)
  • Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. (Acts 17:11)
  • Test everything. Hold on to the good. (1 Thes 5:21)
  • Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 Jn 4:1)

Speaking of John 10:37, I find it deplorable to see you (Damian) reduced to employing outright terms of abuse against an innocent high schooler who, no less, has followed your every instruction. For shame. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Yus Rebwend look he's hurwting me Q.Q Vive Liberté! 11:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

[edit] REsPoNsE

YoU CaLl RaTiONal WikI uSeRs, sMug, StUPiD, ARroGanT eTc- aND YoU uSe MOare CApiTalS tHan iS rEaSoNaBlE, WhILe cOnStANtlY CoMPlaiNiNg thaT PeOPle DoN't AutOMatiCaLLy ABanDon RW aNd aDoPT (yOUr VErsIoN oF) ChRiStIaNitY.

YOu aRe a TaD ArRogAnT iN yOuR aTTiTudE - aNd tHeRe iS nO eVidENce oF YOuR tHiNkInG 'dEveLOpinG tHroUGh DiScuSSioN' (aS MaNy RW-iAnS wIlL iN fAcT dO) - oR aCCepTinG tHaT ouR VieWs mAy be aS ValId to uS as YouRS aRe tO yOu.

(Apologies to other readers for any difficulty in reading - it was equally difficult to write).

In the Bible Jesus says 'In my Father's house are many mansions' - which could be accepted as meaning various views etc are accepted by God - and if God is not willing to accept people 'who lived reasonable lives, and who overall tried to do more good than harm (and keep the latter to the minimum in type and quantity), whatever their belief system' then what is the point of God? (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, to accept that interpretation of the 'many mansions' verse, you'd have to conveniently ignore John 14:6. Christianity makes no claims that members of other religions will be accepted into heaven. Karma isn't a thing in Christianity. 'Saved by faith, not by works, so that no man may boast.' Not that it matters really. Vive Liberté! 13:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
'By their deeds shall you know them' ('Talk is cheap.')
We are, according to the Bible, made in God's image.
'Only faith matters' not the good or evil that you do seems profoundly unfair/wrong.
Therefore God takes what we do into account. (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
'This seems profoundly unfair, therefore this' isn't really right. "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." Christians will argue that good works, like your reference there, come after salvation as a result of salvation. Good works by themselves don't save a person. Vive Liberté! 16:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I am not a Christian - but I try and do good/make the world a better place: and there are many others of the billions of humans past and present who could make the same statement - many of them following belief systems which promote 'being and doing good.' Therefore your claim of 'unfairness' is wrong. (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Neither am I a Christian. I find it supremely offensive that a man like Hitler or Stalin could find grace on their deathbeds. Well Hitler killed himself, but you know what I mean. But even in light of this, I prefer to have the facts straight on all sides. Vive Liberté! 16:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Most people in Europe are familiar with at least some quotations from the Bible - which is a complex composite text - and will use these to phrase their views in such discussions.
Whatever one's belief/ethical system - surely the intent should be to lead a 'good' life and improve the sum of human happiness/knowledge/other positive aspects - and the key point, perhaps, is that we "choose to do so" (rather than a passive not doing bad things). But this is getting onto a different and possibly more constructive thread than the article title. (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Since neither of you have ANY objective definition of morality... I DONT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU MEAN by descent or good!!!! It was IMMORAL in nazi Germany to shelter a jew and counted as treason... Would you consider those people who reported Jews as moral???????--Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean 'decent' or 'descent' - and you have just lost the argument. (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

[edit] I'll Bite, Why Not?

If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then why does evil exist? More importantly, why do bad things happen to good people, such as Rachel Scott from Columbine High School?RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I dont know--Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Come on! Surely you can do better than that? Christopher (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
You're assuming death is a bad thing for Christians, but we actually look forward to it. Rachel Scott probably died instantly, and at the perfect age because it was just before the stress of adulthood would have struck her. Newsflash: we all die eventually, but some just have to deal with more BS here on Earth first. What happened to her was a blessing. I be an IFB (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Thou shalt not kill? Christopher (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Don't insult my intelligence, or my moral compass, IFB. Speaking as a teenager, what you just called Rachel's death, "a blessing," is not merely wrong, it is vile. Fuck off until you learn the difference between right and wrong. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
When you ask a controversial question, you should not be surprised by a controversial answer. There's no doubt about the slaying of Miss Scott being a sin, but yhe point is that death is not as terrible to a true Christian as it is to a humanistic atheist. It must suck knowing you will die some day, and thinking that is the end. Her death is not pretty to think about, but chances are your death will be even less pleasant. I work in a hospital, and I see the pain every day. I be an IFB (talk) 04:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Fair point. Perhaps I got a little hotheaded for my own good. So basically, your response to the Problem of Evil...Is that death for Christians is...Less evil? Isn't that kind of a "not as bad as" argument? If God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, then he should not be striving for a lesser evil, but instead a greater good, as he both is able to do so and knows that doing so is correct? Tell me, do you own a defensive implement (e.g., a gun)? If so, and if you are not afraid of death or even consider it positive, then why do you need to defend yourself? RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I can show why the existence of evil DOES NOT disprove the existence of God... However, I cannot ultimately know why a certain event takes place!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I can't wait to hear this. It'd better be good because you've really got my hopes up now. Christopher (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with KD1. The problem of evil does not disprove the Divine. However, if he is arguing for the existence of the Christian God, who is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then the problem of evil dispels one or all of the notions we have of God's existence or his traits. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
When talking with a Christian I use God to mean the Christian God and I think Kingdamian also thinks "god" automatically means his god, I agree that the POE certainly doesn't disprove Cthulhu (PBUH) for instance.
The existence of a Demiurge is, I believe, an adequate answer to the problem of evil. That is, two equally powerful and knowledgeable beings operating against each other, one omnibenevolent and the other omnimalevolent, could explain why a benevolent God cannot solve evil. But of course, most Christians reject the notion of Demiurge. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah yes, Christianity is completely monotheistic! Only the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit all of which are collectively described as the "God of gods". Completely monotheistic. Christopher (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
The biggest problem is perverted doctrines promoted by charismatic preachers. God allows free will because He chose to do things that way, but that doesn't mean it's okay to do whatever. May I ask, if humans are naturally good (as many humanists believe), why do humans do evil things? If the Bible is a fairy-tale, and humans are destroying the planet, why is murder, starvation, and disease so bad? I be an IFB (talk) 04:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
They'll describe the trinity as three persons in one being, however that works. I personally love RW's own logical arguments against the trinity. @IFB, Rachel Scott was a tragedy. And regardless of whether or not death is considered 'evil', you still haven't answered why innocent children can suffer because of Sarin attacks or why beautiful landscapes can be destroyed by floods or why God would let his own people be killed in a mass genocide. @KD1, if you bring the usual blend of the FWD and the C-O theodicy I'll be disappointed. Vive Liberté! 12:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
As a humanist, I don't think humans are inherently good, I also don't think they're inherently "evil". Humans just tend to make choices that benefit themselves, and sometimes as a result harm other people. That's not evil, it's just basic instinct. When people realize that we all might benefit a little more from working together and not always exclusively for our own immediate benefit is when successful societies rise. Also, just for accuracy's sake, you may want to provide a more objective definition "evil".megalodon (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

[edit] I Like This, I'LL HAVE ANOTHER!

Is something right because God told us it was right, or vice versa? This should be easy for you. RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Ronin... Earlier you mentioned that I should "Fuck off" till I learn the difference between right and wrong... So what do you base that on? Why is fornication, for example, wrong in your view?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@KD1: Oh. I'm sorry. That "fuck off" was directed at User:I be an IFB, not at you. Unless you're the same person. Which I doubt. Anyways, sorry.
But the area of fornication is a little weird for me, if we were to continue discussing your example. Personally, I don't approve of it, but that extends only to myself. I might tell someone that I don't think they should have intercourse until they are mature, ready, and/or stable, but I won't do much more than that. My friends' affairs are not my concern, unless they involve me. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Exactly... you illustrate my point... You for example... would deem it immoral to have sex with a married woman. Now imagine you have a friend who thinks it's ok to have sex with a married woman as long as you don't get caught by the husband... Both of you are atheists... Who gets to say who's right or who's wrong??? His understanding of right clashes with yours... But there is no reason as to why your sense of morality is more supreme than his...

Let me bring a more graphic example... Current state of North Korea has had 3 leaders... AT LEAST 1 of them was doing what they thought was RIGHT in their eyes... Richard Dawkins, for example, is an anti-totalitarian, who would says that they are wrong...

So Richard Dawkin's view of right vs Kim Jong Un view of right... WHO GETS TO DECIDE WHAT IS RIGHT in this case... both of them are right in their own eyes...

A nazi German citizen going to report a hiding Jew would have been represented as a MORAL, law-abiding citizen... Whereas someone sheltering Jews would be executed for treason...

The guy who reported Jews also was doing what was RIGHT IN HIS OWN WAY... WHO GETS TO ULTIMATELY SAY what was right? WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES???

What consequences will the Chicago tylenol murderer pay... He poisoned Tylenol bottles with cyanide... People chocked INSIDE-OUT and he wasn't caught... I WANT TO KNOW, in your worldview... WHAT CONSEQUENCES AWAIT THIS MAN?????????????--Kingdamian1 (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm a contractarian. Societies determine what is right, because rational people know that a world where the strong are free to prey on the weak is not optimal, putting it lightly.
In the case of the Tylenol murderer, in my worldview he would be sentenced to prison or executed if he was caught. For the sake of argument, let's say he never will be. Then no consequences await him. Does it suck? Yeah, it's pretty bad. Is it just? Hell no. But the world sometimes isn't just. Sometimes it's a terrible place, full of people who deserve nothing more than prison or the electric chair. Would it be a better world if God did exist, and the good were rewarded and the evil were punished? I would probably say yes. But argument from adverse consequences is no more valid a proof for the existence of a god than the problem of evil is a disproof of a god.
::Which brings me back to my original question: Is it right because God said it, or did God say it because it was right? If the latter, where did this notion of morality come from? If the former, are we essentially a race of slaves operating at the behest of what, by almost all accounts, is a creature of Lovecraftian proportions?
But...we're good on the whole "fuck off" misunderstanding, right? RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems like you have faulty imaginations about me... you'd be surprised at my young age... so there is no need for extra apologies...Kingdamian1 (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Right and wrong are related to US...since God is good himself... those things only matter to us... so it is right because it is God's nature and he tells us about his nature so we can be more like himKingdamian1 (talk) 05:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I apologize quite often in real life, so it's a habit. I'd really rather tackle the philosophical implications of God than his existence, so I'm signing off. Nice job. Have a good day! RoninMacbeth (talk) 13:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Omniscience and free will

Does God's omniscience include being able to see into the future? If so, is it because:

  • There is no free will
  • There is free will, but since God is omniscient, He knows what choices everyone will make at every moment throughout all time. This includes the exact moment everyone will have sex, and which sperm will fertilize which egg, with which combination of genes, since in the year 2,538 B.C. (to pick at random) God would have known George W. Bush would become president of the United States in the year 2001 (a fact which requires that a) George W. Bush would exist as he did, b) everyone who voted and didn't vote in the election existed and voted/didn't vote as they did, and c) the people who counted ballots, programmed the ballot-reading computers, invented said computers, etc., would've existed as they did. Note that while the amount of information required to know this is tremendous, it's still finite: the universe had a beginning and will have an end (the Second Coming, when everyone who's saved is saved, and vise-versa)) and space (even if the universe is spacially-infinite, the parts of it that can affect Earth within the finite time of the universe is finite because speed-of-light restrictions). For example, even knowing everything about every particle in the known universe (a causality-bubble across about 14 billion years in a spacial bubble at least 100 billion light-years in radius) is no more than 10100 bits of information (there are around 1080 particles in the observable universe, and giving each particle 1020 bits to track is way over-estimating), which is a long ways away from infinite.

If there is no free will, what is the point of creating a universe where tens or hundreds of billions of humans live mostly-shitty lives, only to have most of them be cast into Hell (or annihilated) for not having the free will to follow God's law?

If there is free will, what is the point of creating a universe where tens or hundreds of billions of humans live mostly-shitty lives when you could just not, create all the would-have-been-saved humans in heaven, then spend an insignificant fraction of eternity explaining why He just did away with evil right at the start, going through step-by-step all 10100 bits of information across all of time to get His creation to understand why He was destined to 'win'? Onychoprion (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know! How does this make a case for atheism?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok after that post, you are not allowed in hell. You can at least try. 2d4chanfag (talk) 04:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Look... I CANT GIVE YOU a detailed explanation of why certain aspects happen the way they do... no... I can't tell you why YOU WERE born instead of someone else... I can't tell you how God operatesKingdamian1 (talk) 05:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Wait, these questions were supposed to be making a case for atheism? I thought we were just supposed to ask smug difficult theological questions. Unfortunately I don't have a question that makes a case for atheism beyond "What does God do in the physical universe that can't be explained by natural processes?" Rainbows, lightning, earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, etc., all used to be proof for God, or various lower-case gods, and we now know that there's nothing supernatural about any of them.
I commend you for your "I don't know." I've not heard many theists say those words. I would like clarification if that "I don't know" was about God being able to see the future, though.
And on that note, I can give an argument for why, if God can see the future, He doesn't deserve to be worshiped in any way, shape, or form.
  • P1 - God's morality aligns with our own
Matthew 7:9-11 (NASB) "Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!" Jesus doesn't say "You know how sometimes when your kid asks for a fish you give him a snake instead because, from your kid's point of view, you work in 'mysterious ways'?" No, Jesus clearly states that God's goodness aligns with what we humans would call good, because even though we're evil, we can recognize good.
  • P2 - God can see the future, and the future is knowable
See my pain argument above. Whether or not free will exists, if God can see the future, then there is a deterministic aspect to the universe, and either God set it all in motion, or is constantly crafting it (choosing which sperm to bind with which egg, etc.) to conform to His target future.
  • P3 - God created the universe, and everything in it.
Kinda the whole point, and far too many Bible verses to support this. And 'Everything in the universe' includes Satan, and evil. Since the future is knowable, and God knows it, then when He created Satan he either knew Satan would rebel and cause sin, or He created Satan to rebel and cause sin.
  • P4 - Not all humans will be saved
Matthew 7:13, 14 (NASB) "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it."
  • Q1 - God has the temperament of a petulant child.
So, God creates a problem - sin - and an entire species to have that problem - humans - and sets Himself up as the only way to avoid it. But He also ensures a majority of that species won't take the rescue, so He can torture them forever (or annihilate them), even though they had no chance to ever be saved (He already knows who's going to be saved and who's not)
If we, as evil creatures who can recognize good, can recognize how unjust and not-good that is, how can God claim to be worthy of worship? Onychoprion (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps #the whole point# is that we have the choice - to 'be as good as we can/choose to do the right thing' or 'to do wrong' (and most of us are 'not bad' at least partially because we are never presented with the option).
And probably many of us can 'see the point' of something like Purgatory - as we all do naughty things/choose to go for the easy rather than the right thing etc. (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
How much choice is there if God already knows what choice you're going to make? Again, either God created me at the exact time, and ensured I've gone through all my experiences that lead me to atheism, even to writing this, for the sake of some master plan that'll land me in hell for all eternity (or annihilated), OR God created a universe where all of that is an inevitability. Either way, from the moment God created the universe, I and the majority of humanity were going and will have always gone to hell.
Though I can see you're willing to go extra-biblical with your beliefs, which renders the whole point moot since you can invent your own god that doesn't have these problems. But that god is decidedly not YHWH Onychoprion (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a logical paradox - God created us in his image - but denies us free will.
Or is the situation more complex than that? (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Can someone answer the BoN's question? (talk)

[edit] Tone argument

Calling your opponent smug in a debate is a tone argument and ad hominem. That is all. Christopher (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mean it as offense... Kingdamian1 (talk) 06:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Ad hominems don't have to be offensive to be ad hominems (and not all offensive things are ad hominems). Christopher (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
To what extent are 'I didn't mean it as offensive' (and similar) and 'Just asking questions' versions of the same intent? (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I question how often the "tone argument" or "tone policing" is actually a valid fallacy. I mean, if someone actually says "Your uncivil tone is evidence that your factual claims are incorrect"–then read as a deduction, that is an invalid argument; if read as an induction, it is arguably rather weak (although it is plausible there may actually be some correlation between one's civility and how many of one's beliefs are true, so while it is undoubtedly weak it may not be the weakest). However, most of the time people don't actually say anything that precise, so the judgement that they are committing such a fallacy must rely on reading what they actually say as constituting such an argument, and that reading may well be questionable. I frequently see discussions of roughly this form:

  1. A: [some factual or value claim which B rejects]
  2. B: [some angry/abusive/impolite/uncivil response, which may or may not contain a cogent objection to what A said]
  3. A: You should be more civil/polite/etc.
  4. B: That's tone policing! [Or, "you've just committed the tone argument fallacy", or something similar.]

Now, is (3) actually meant to be read as "Your uncivil tone is evidence that your factual claims are incorrect"? Here is another interpretation of it: we all have limited time to engage in debate, so we always have to decide when to continue a debate or when to just give up as a waste of our time. Many people believe that dealing with uncivil or impolite interlocutors is a waste of their time. I think that is a completely reasonable judgement to hold. The fact is, that uncivil/impolite/abusive interlocutors very often don't present as clear or cogent or well-thought-out arguments as civil/polite interlocutors do. And, it is more emotionally/mentally draining dealing with them, so that changes the cost-benefit tradeoff of abandoning vs. continuing the debate. Furthermore, many people value civility/politeness as a social norm, so refusing to engage in debate with those who violate this norm actually works to reinforce that norm, whereas continuing to engage them in debate tends to undermine it. So, there are lots of valid pragmatic reasons to refuse to continue a debate when one's interlocutor adopts an uncivil tone–and these pragmatic reasons cannot be viewed as a "fallacy", labelling it as such is simply a category mistake. Only arguments can be possibly fallacious, but a refusal to continue debate, or imposing conditions on one's willingness to do so, is not an argument, so it cannot be fallacious. Rationality says we should refrain from making fallacious arguments; it never says we cannot choose which debates to engage in and which to withdraw from, and nor does it say our reasons for engaging in or withdrawing from a debate must be limited to those of theoretical rationality. And, I think labelling (3) as a fallacy actually reveals a poor understanding of speech act theory – it is trying to interpret every statement in a debate as indicative in intent, when some statements don't function indicatively, rather they function pragmatically as expressions of willingness to continue or discontinue the argument, or as imposing conditions on its continuation (making an offer which may be accepted or rejected). It may be that the claim that there is such a thing as a "tone argument fallacy" is actually the real fallacy. (((Zack Martin))) 05:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Personal tools