Achilles Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 I think people sometimes accept poor theological "arguments" because they have a tendency to be abstract. CDK007 fixes that problem for this particular bit o' apologist rhetoric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 finally... a bit of evidence that will get people to give up their beliefs and love one another unconditionally........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acdcfanbill Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 The area of evidence is one that theists care little for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockhead Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 Would those who would otherwise go to hell love god back? Would it be right for those who do love god to suffer from those who don not? To use a similar idea, I think we have a duty of care in the world. You go to most places in the world and there are lawd and punishments to ensure that duty of care. Some places have death as a punishment. Should we then remove these laws and punishments because they are not loving? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 And the Damned Fool Anti-Theistic Crusade™ begins anew. OCD is such an ugly thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted October 24, 2009 Author Share Posted October 24, 2009 finally... a bit of evidence that will get people to give up their beliefs and love one another unconditionally........... How unfortunate that we seem to be confused as to the difference between "evidence" and "argumentation" (or in this case maybe "counter-"). Or perhaps you opted to comment without first making some effort to find out what you were commenting on? Would those who would otherwise go to hell love god back? Would it be right for those who do love god to suffer from those who don not? To use a similar idea, I think we have a duty of care in the world. You go to most places in the world and there are lawd and punishments to ensure that duty of care. Some places have death as a punishment. Should we then remove these laws and punishments because they are not loving? I think this kinda misses the point. If god loves us all, then how can hell exist? Either hell isn't real, god isn't real, or god doesn't love us all. Which of these options 1) makes the most sense (and is consistent with the evidence) or 2) are we the most comfortable with? And the Damned Fool Anti-Theistic Crusade™ begins anew. Your participation, as always, is completely voluntary. OCD is such an ugly thing. In light of my comment above, it certainly would seem to be the case, wouldn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 How unfortunate that we seem to be confused as to the difference between "evidence" and "argumentation" (or in this case maybe "counter-"). Or perhaps you opted to comment without first making some effort to find out what you were commenting on? no to both of those. actually i was thinking maybe you could make a thread about everyone on youtube who makes a few videos about god then maybe if you make enough of them religion will die or whatever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted October 24, 2009 Author Share Posted October 24, 2009 I'll work on that. Maybe you could start a thread on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and post some articles and then maybe if you post enough of them both sides will decide to stop fighting or something. Or maybe social consciousness is only cool when you do it. I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 ah yes i forgot some random youtuber making a video is newsworthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 "renowned scholar cdk007 has published a video today, from the looks of the video it is entitled 'unregistered powervideomaker', although this has yet to be confirmed." -the ap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted October 24, 2009 Author Share Posted October 24, 2009 ah yes i forgot some random youtuber making a video is newsworthy I certainly think the content of the video is worth discussion. If you don't then you're free to not participate. So would you like to discuss the content or would you like to continue whatever problem it is you have with me and/or post more strawmen about video authors (rather than the videos themselves). P.S. the Senate is a serious discussion forum. "Serious discussion" is not limited to "newsworthy". I hope that helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 i will discuss the video then. it is 3 minutes of drivel during which professor cdk007 ignores the fact that he is talking about how unless god loves us all as much as we love the most important person in our lives this somehow disproves the fact that there is a god. think about that for a second, how much any of us love 1 person is his standard and god has to meet that standard for billions of us? you can't be serious, and i hope you reconsider calling yourself logical if you truely believe this is at all rational Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockhead Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 I think this kinda misses the point. If god loves us all, then how can hell exist? Either hell isn't real, god isn't real, or god doesn't love us all. Which of these options 1) makes the most sense (and is consistent with the evidence) or 2) are we the most comfortable with? "Father" is a term ofter used in relation to god. A father who disciplines his children would still love them. While the concept of hell might seem severe, would it be any better were those who did not love god allowed to make those who do love god suffer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted October 24, 2009 Author Share Posted October 24, 2009 i will discuss the video then. Great. it is 3 minutes of drivel during which professor cdk007 ignores the fact that he is talking about how unless god loves us all as much as we love the most important person in our lives this somehow disproves the fact that there is a god. Actually, it's a condensed, real-world take on one aspect of the problem of evil. Perhaps you're not familiar with that theological argument, hence why you're unable to recognize the context. It does not "somehow disprove the fact that there is a god". It does demonstrate that the problem of evil is a valid theological argument and that apologetics are insufficient to address it. think about that for a second, how much any of us love 1 person is his standard and god has to meet that standard for billions of us? I've thought about it for a lot of seconds. I'd ask you to think about your own argument for a second: Either our standards are based on gods or they are not. If they are and god is not able to meet his own standard, then there is a problem. If they are not then how do we get our standards? Are our standards higher or lower than god's. Either way you go, this is also a problem for god. So, I do agree with you that one of us does need to spend some time thinking about it. you can't be serious, and i hope you reconsider calling yourself logical if you truely believe this is at all rational Perhaps a stronger counter-argument would indeed give me cause for further reflection. At this point, I think I'm still okay. "Father" is a term ofter used in relation to god. A father who disciplines his children would still love them. While the concept of hell might seem severe, would it be any better were those who did not love god allowed to make those who do love god suffer? This is precisely the point raised in the video. Assume for a second that your assumption is correct and discipline ala "tough love" is the best standard for raising "children". Are you saying that a spanking for breaking a vase and spending an eternity is a lake of fire for not loving your parents "enough" is the same thing? If yes, then there's your answer, thanks for playing, and we're all done here. If no, then we have to ask ourselves why our standards would appear to be more merciful and more loving than god's. Which is a huge problem because "he" is supposed to be ALL-loving and we're supposed to be fallible. Even if "tough love" is the answer, god's version of it seems extreme to at least some of us and runs counter to any presupposition that god is omnibenevolent. Can't have it both ways here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 Perhaps a stronger counter-argument would indeed give me cause for further reflection. At this point, I think I'm still okay.you just responded to that post, so get reflecting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted October 24, 2009 Author Share Posted October 24, 2009 And you just responded to the post where I countered your post. You're certainly welcome not to acknowledge that your points have been countered, but really won't mean very much here. You could opt to address my counter-arguments (either to point out where my logic is flawed, or perhaps learn something), but it's certainly not mandatory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockhead Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 I conducted a little bit of research and came across this. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081006114620AAn1ETq It may not be the answer you are looking for but it attempts to explain why there is a hell if god loves us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pho3nix Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Yahoo answers? Oh brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockhead Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 You would prefer Richard Dawkins answer the question perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted October 25, 2009 Author Share Posted October 25, 2009 Yahoo answers? Oh brother. I thought "Best Answer - Chosen by Asker" was the best part @lockhead: this doesn't introduce anything new. A great deal of that response is completely unrelated to the question. What little that is there doesn't address the video from the OP. All it does is repeat the argument that video counters. In other words, it's not progress. All it does is repeat step 1. You would prefer Richard Dawkins answer the question perhaps? I think appealing to authority (regardless of whose "authority" you appeal to) doesn't help either. We should be looking the argument that makes the most sense. Not which answer comes from the person we like the most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockhead Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 I believe it prudant to ask, what type of answers are you looking for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted October 25, 2009 Author Share Posted October 25, 2009 "Serious ones" would probably be the most succinct. Something that is supported by evidence or is at least both logically sound and consistent would be absolutely fabulous. I recommend using the link I provided in post 14 as a jumping off point for further research. This episode of the reasonable doubts podcast might also have some food for thought as well. And if you want to invest a little more time into the matter, you could also try this book by Bart Ehrman (interview here) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockhead Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 I want to reflect back what I think you're saying. You're saying that god cannot exist because of the concept of hell? To try and answer the question of why there is a need for hell, say you were running this forum. One day someone comes in and starts acting obnoxious. They argue, they fight, and they threaten the forum staff when they intercede. What do you do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted October 25, 2009 Author Share Posted October 25, 2009 I want to reflect back what I think you're saying. You're saying that god cannot exist because of the concept of hell? No. I'll once more repeat what I am saying: Either hell isn't real, god isn't real, or god doesn't love us all. There is as much (or as little) room for the middle option as you care for, but one of those things has to be true. Obviously, if you opt for the middle option, then the third is void as well and the first one kinda loses any significance. To try and answer the question of why there is a need for hell, say you were running this forum. One day someone comes in and starts acting obnoxious. They argue, they fight, and they threaten the forum staff when they intercede. What do you do? The analogy is not even worth my time. You're welcome to try again though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockhead Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 I am afraid that you seem to have taken the position that it has to be one of those three, to the point of ignoring anything that suggests otherwise. Reading your posts I believe this is to try and prove there is no god, and that is the only answer that you are interested in. If that is the case then the only answer that would be accepted would be that god does not exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.