Philosophy Now Forum

This your 'God' of love speaking again?

Arising_uk wrote:This your 'God' of love speaking again?

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure God's not overly concerned about who the mods ban.

ReliStuPhD wrote:

ianrust wrote:I have 2 close friends who are questioning their homosexuality right now, and I know of others. One of them I've spent a good amount of time with for about 8 years. Not just idle questioning, seriously questioning it. And they're doing that on their own. SO... what?

3 people does not make "knowing well." It's akin to me saying "I know Christians well. They're nasty people, who couldn't care less about others, only their servitude to the wicked God of the Old Testament. They show very little love and spend most of their time condemning others with a holier-than-thou attitude. When they explain their faith, it's clear that it's pure fantasy and not even remotely close to anything one could consider rational." And then, when challenged on whether I actually know Christians, I reply with "I have 2 friends who are questioning their Christianity and I know of others."

So no, you don't know LGBTQ folk anymore than the vast majority of atheists who post here know Christians. All you've done it laid out the worst stereotypes with respect to the gay community. You might as well have said "I know black people well. They're lazy good-for-nothings" because you met 3 black people who were moving out of an inner-city slum. What you've done is the easiest trick in the book, and one of the most fallacious. If you expect atheists to fairly present Christians by not relying on a sample size they could count on both hands, you'll need to do the same with LGBTQ folk. Spending time with a few who question who they are is hardly grounds for claiming to "know" and entire category of humans.

So no, you do not "know" gays "well." All you know are the crudest stereotypes.

Your entire post is an equivocation.
I studied psychology for 10 years and I feel I have a firm grasp on the gays... they're actually not that psychologically complex, compared with alot of others. One of the gays I know is another psychologist, the one I've known for 8 years. By 'know' I mean, really know. Not 'having met or encountered often'. I've read articles about the psychology of gays to treat them.... Equating my understanding of this with your surface level assertions on Christianity - that is an equivocation. It is useful for obfuscating an argument, but not meaningful.
The gay community - I expect them to be offended by me; but gay individuals, more often than you'd expect, draw closer to me and listen to what I say to them. Still, when I have offended people, it's then I really know I am coming closer to what is true, often times.

I don't expect atheists to fairly represent Christians. I expect them to lie about Christianity, to use denial and apathy to sidestep the topic and, when necessary, employ social humiliation and aggression to stonewall it - like you have shown here - because this is characteristic of a belief in atheism.

I do not expect an atheist to respect the truth, it would be a contradiction.

You are correct in one thing - that Christianity is not rational... neither is the number Pi.

Now goodbye.

ianrust wrote:

ReliStuPhD wrote:

ianrust wrote:I have 2 close friends who are questioning their homosexuality right now, and I know of others. One of them I've spent a good amount of time with for about 8 years. Not just idle questioning, seriously questioning it. And they're doing that on their own. SO... what?

3 people does not make "knowing well." It's akin to me saying "I know Christians well. They're nasty people, who couldn't care less about others, only their servitude to the wicked God of the Old Testament. They show very little love and spend most of their time condemning others with a holier-than-thou attitude. When they explain their faith, it's clear that it's pure fantasy and not even remotely close to anything one could consider rational." And then, when challenged on whether I actually know Christians, I reply with "I have 2 friends who are questioning their Christianity and I know of others."

So no, you don't know LGBTQ folk anymore than the vast majority of atheists who post here know Christians. All you've done it laid out the worst stereotypes with respect to the gay community. You might as well have said "I know black people well. They're lazy good-for-nothings" because you met 3 black people who were moving out of an inner-city slum. What you've done is the easiest trick in the book, and one of the most fallacious. If you expect atheists to fairly present Christians by not relying on a sample size they could count on both hands, you'll need to do the same with LGBTQ folk. Spending time with a few who question who they are is hardly grounds for claiming to "know" and entire category of humans.

So no, you do not "know" gays "well." All you know are the crudest stereotypes.

Your entire post is an equivocation.

Hardly. Do you even know what an equivocation is?

ianrust wrote:I studied psychology for 10 years and I feel I have a firm grasp on the gays...

(emphasis mine)
All evidence--above and below--to the contrary.

ianrust wrote: they're actually not that psychologically complex, compared with alot of others. One of the gays I know is another psychologist, the one I've known for 8 years. By 'know' I mean, really know. Not 'having met or encountered often'. I've read articles about the psychology of gays to treat them.... Equating my understanding of this with your surface level assertions on Christianity - that is an equivocation. It is useful for obfuscating an argument, but ultimately bullshit.

Nope, you don't know what an equivocation is (and I'm also beginning to doubt that you "studied psychology for 10 years" in any formal sense).

ianrust wrote:The gay community - I expect them to be offended by me, but not all of them are. When I have offended people, it's then I really know I am coming closer to what is true, often times.

Psychologist's fallacy (you really should know this one).

ianrust wrote:I don't expect atheists to fairly represent Christians, I expect them to use denial and apathy to sidestep the topic and, when necessary, social humiliation and aggression - like you have shown here - because this is characteristic of a belief in atheism.

Funny. Those are pretty much my sentiments when it comes to evangelical Christians and "the gays." Still, that I've offended you tells me I am coming closer to what it true.

ianrust wrote:I do not expect an atheist to respect the truth, I would be ignorant to expect this.

Simple ad hominem, or argument from incredulity. Perhaps both?

ianrust wrote:You are correct in one thing - that Christianity is not rational... neither is the number Pi.

You don't even understand your own faith. Sad.

ianrust wrote:Now goodbye.

Wisest thing you've said in this whole exchange.

The statement on atheism is not a fallacy because it's not a rational argument.

Whether the psychologist part is a fallacy (which it would be some other fallacy) depends on whether it's true. If you assume I'm wrong, then you can ascribe fallacies to what I say. But if I'm correct, than what I say is simply correct. You just assume rationality is the basis for truth. You're just asserting yourself, that's all you're doing.
e·quiv·o·ca·tion
iˌkwivəˈkāSH(ə)n/
noun
the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication.

ianrust wrote:Whether it's a fallacy depends on whether it's true. If you assume I'm wrong, then you can ascribe fallacies to what I say.

Nope. That's absolutely not what a fallacy is in a logical sense. In fact, that very statement is a fallacy.

ianrust wrote:But if I'm correct, than what I say is simply correct.

Tautology.

ianrust wrote:You're just asserting yourself, that's all you're doing.

You really don't understand how to make an argument, do you?

ianrust wrote:e·quiv·o·ca·tion
iˌkwivəˈkāSH(ə)n/
noun
the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication.

Yep. So show me where I've done that.

You can go figure it out. You put too much effort into this, quoting line by line everything I say. I'm just not in the mood I know what this turns into - 2 hours of me quoting you, you requoting me, and us getting nowhere. The psychologists fallacy - if I'm right about them, I haven't committed a fallacy I'm not making an assumption. You assume I'm wrong, so then I've made an assumption that's wrong. It's just circular arguing and a waste of time.

Looking back, all of the things you're calling fallacies actually are not fallacies. You don't even know what a fallacy is... You're reaching for fallacies, too.
fal·la·cy
ˈfaləsē/Submit
noun
a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument.

What you really don't get is that language is not rational; the truth is not rational. Truth can only be alluded to. You're too obsessed with logic. You also don't know what an ad-hominem is. My statement about atheism is an assertion. You are just too... rational, you lack transcendental awareness. If I had to choose a philosophy it would be transcendentalism, I really devalue rationality; not that it doesn't have utility, but it is overused; in itself it is limited, oppositional, pointless... it's not... really concerned with truth; it's more concerned with elaboration.

It is tiring to go through the rounds like this. I much prefer speaking to people who get to the point, make a case of their own, speak from within themselves rather than dissecting everything - demanding I further clarify and redissect ... always speaking but never saying anything meaningful.

ianrust wrote:You can go figure it out.

I thought so. Can't shoulder the burden of proof, can you?

ianrust wrote: You put too much effort into this, quoting line by line everything I say. I'm just not in the mood I know what this turns into - 2 hours of me quoting you, you requoting me, and us getting nowhere. The psychologists fallacy - if I'm right about them, I haven't committed a fallacy I'm not making an assumption.

No, I've put about the right amount of effort into this. You made a sweeping assertion that showed how little you actually know. I countered it, you then defended yourself with any number of logical fallacies (both informal and formal). Insofar as bigoted views such as yours need to be countered, I've put exactly as much time into this as I needed to. But at least you've qualified your position with an "if" ("if I'm right about them"). That'll do for a days' work.

PS You give yourself too much credit. I've only spent about 30 minutes total on this. When to views as poorly informed as yours, little effort is required.

PPS You really should look up the word "rational." Despite what the atheists say, Christianity's pretty solid on this point.

Belief in God is not rational.
ra·tion·al
ˈraSH(ə)n(ə)l/
adjective
1.
based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

All rational argument for belief in God is secondary to the belief itself.


You've put 30 minutes into this. If I respond to you, it'll take about 15 - 30 minutes. Then you'll respond. Then I'll respond. Then you'll respond. Then I'll respond. It's a circular staircase leading nowhere, in a vain attempt by you to circumvent the law of God. At the end, I'll have refined everything I've said to live up to some imagined digital standard of perfection, the truth will not have changed at all, because truth is not rational, and our disagreement is not rational.

noun, plural truths [trooth z, trooths] (Show IPA)
1.
the true or actual state of a matter: This is self-evident, not rational
He tried to find out the truth.
2.
conformity with fact or reality; verity: Reality is not rational
the truth of a statement.
3.
a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: This is rational, the only form of "truth" which is; it's also a very limited definition
mathematical truths.
4.
the state or character of being true. again self evident
5.
actuality or actual existence. same
6.
an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude. axiomatic, not rational
7.
honesty; integrity; truthfulness. transcendental

By and large truth is not rational.

Whether I bother to put the time to bring all my statements into mathematical perfection is beside the point, and dependent on my mood - I'm just not feeling it right now.

ianrust wrote:Belief in God is not rational.

Then, not to put too fine a point on it, you're a fool and the atheists win. You would do well to read some Christian philosophers. Alvin Plantinga would be an excellent start. And if he's too academic for you, find an apologist such as William Lane Craig. Or maybe just this guy I just Googled: http://www.gty.org/resources/print/articles/A312 Otherwise, if you think belief in God is irrational, then you should stop believing. Immediately. After all, belief in Flying Spaghetti Monster is not rational, so you'd be just as justified to believe in him.What's mre, atheists are right about everything you say, and have said, if this is true. They may even prove to be wise. (At the very least, you can't fault them for not believing in God, because, as you said, atheism "is not a rational argument," just as you maintain belief in God isn't.)

ianrust wrote:"the true or actual state of a matter:"
This is self-evident, not rational

Hardly. You are certainly welcome to hold that belief in God is properly basic, but even then, it's rational.

ianrust wrote:"conformity with fact or reality; verity:"
Reality is not rational

That you can make such a statement, and mean it, boggles the mind. It also shows you're self-referentially incoherent. Why make an argument at all if the reality of things is not "in accordance with reason?" You'd be using reason to prove the unreasonable. Certainly a fool's errand if ever there was one.

ianrust wrote:"an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude. "
axiomatic, not rational

Axioms are rational. That's one of the reasons they're axioms. We don't hold irrational things to be "general truths" because there's no way to evaluate their veracity.

ianrust wrote:By and large truth is not rational.

Sorry, but this may qualify as the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

ianrust wrote:Whether I bother to put the time to bring all my statements into mathematical perfection is beside the point, and dependent on my mood - I'm just not feeling it right now.

"Mathematical perfection?" That's aiming far too high for you. Just settle for basic coherence.

I'm not going to bother with the other inanities you've written. If you truly believe truth is not rational, there is absolutely no helping you. You're also WAYYYYY outside the bounds of anything resembling orthodox Christianity. Perhaps even more importantly, you've just said that Jesus (and, by extension, God) is irrational, insofar as the Bible maintains "he is the way, the truth, and the light." Now, if you really want to double-down on that, then you need to fear for your very soul, because your creator and redeemer are not rational beings so you have no guarantees whatsoever (an irrational being might just decide to toss you into Hell for shits and giggles). If you want to hold that belief in God is neither logical nor reasonable, go for it. The only thing you're undermining is yourself, and the atheists here will have you for lunch (and rightly so). It's hard to believe you're so wholly ignorant of Christian thought over the past 2,000 years. You really should be a student of your own tradition.

I'm happy to continue this conversation, but just be forewarned that as long as you hold to the belief that truth is not rational I won't be able to take anything you say seriously (which is generally how I approach irrationality that is not attached to numbers). So maybe you'll want to back off this silly train of thought and just admit that truth is rational, and that if God revealed "Him"self to humans, the concomitant belief in God would be rational as well. (And if you don't think God revealed "him"self to humans, you're not a Christian, so there's that.)

PS Your "mood" is somewhat irrelevant here. If you're not in the "mood" to be coherent, you should probably just forgo posting here. We already have enough nonsense to go around.

Since I have no job, I may as well dominate you over the internet:

ReliStuPhD wrote:

ianrust wrote:Belief in God is not rational.

Then, not to put too fine a point on it, you're a fool and the atheists win. You would do well to read some Christian philosophers. Alvin Plantinga would be an excellent start. And if he's too academic for you, find an apologist such as William Lane Craig. Or maybe just this guy I just Googled: http://www.gty.org/resources/print/articles/A312 Otherwise, if you think belief in God is irrational, then you should stop believing. Immediately. After all, belief in Flying Spaghetti Monster is not rational, so you'd be just as justified to believe in him.What's mre, atheists are right about everything you say, and have said, if this is true. They may even prove to be wise. (At the very least, you can't fault them for not believing in God, because, as you said, atheism "is not a rational argument," just as you maintain belief in God isn't.)

This is you saying I should not believe in transcendental philosophies, period. Ive seen mr. craig, he's too hung up on debating you people. It's a waste of time. The arguments below will make my position on this clear, and I will say no more after this.

BTW, the flying spaggheti monster is an idol, and not God - you already know my position on this.

ReliStuPhD wrote:

ianrust wrote:"conformity with fact or reality; verity:"
Reality is not rational

That you can make such a statement, and mean it, boggles the mind. It also shows you're self-referentially incoherent. Why make an argument at all if the reality of things is not "in accordance with reason?" You'd be using reason to prove the unreasonable. Certainly a fool's errand if ever there was one.

Reality is apprehended without preconception. There is no logic to it; you apply logic, as an ideal, after perception. Your perception; the experience of life, is not a rational experience. For example, an orange is not rational.

Why argue at all? To dispel arguments. I see my arguments more as anti-arguments; like black holes of thought crunching incorrectness back into a single point of truth.

ianrust wrote:"an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude. "
axiomatic, not rational

ReliStuPhD wrote:Axioms are rational. That's one of the reasons they're axioms. We don't hold irrational things to be "general truths" because there's no way to evaluate their veracity.

Axioms may be broken down into rational components, but the axiom itself is not rational; you can hold an axiom without any rational justification. That axioms are accepted by a most sound rational argument is incorrect. An axiom is accepted for being the strongest moral position.

ianrust wrote:By and large truth is not rational.

ReliStuPhD wrote:Sorry, but this may qualify as the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

IS art rational? Is creativity rational? You don't understand truth. IF the universe is rational, it is repetitive; it is not transcendent; the same events repeat themselves, in circulation, for eternity. Nothing changes. Therefor life is meaningless, IF life is strictly rational. But, if you stop and reflect, you will realize life is not meaningless.

ianrust wrote:Whether I bother to put the time to bring all my statements into mathematical perfection is beside the point, and dependent on my mood - I'm just not feeling it right now.

ReliStuPhD wrote:"Mathematical perfection?" That's aiming far too high for you. Just settle for basic coherence.

I don't think you're speaking very well here.

ReliStuPhD wrote:I'm not going to bother with the other inanities you've written. If you truly believe truth is not rational, there is absolutely no helping you. You're also WAYYYYY outside the bounds of anything resembling orthodox Christianity. Perhaps even more importantly, you've just said that Jesus (and, by extension, God) is irrational, insofar as the Bible maintains "he is the way, the truth, and the light." Now, if you really want to double-down on that, then you need to fear for your very soul, because your creator and redeemer are not rational beings so you have no guarantees whatsoever (an irrational being might just decide to toss you into Hell for shits and giggles). If you want to hold that belief in God is neither logical nor reasonable, go for it. The only thing you're undermining is yourself, and the atheists here will have you for lunch (and rightly so). It's hard to believe you're so wholly ignorant of Christian thought over the past 2,000 years. You really should be a student of your own tradition.

What matters is what the belief accomplishes. The belief itself is irrational, but its implications are rational. A belief is known by its implications. The rest of what you said is a childish mood swing. You romanticize things.
Beliefs are something people cling to because they're what make them happy; people are passionate and idealistic about their beliefs.
As much as you appear well informed and educated about your beliefs, truly you believe in them because they satisfy you - you are satisfied with apathy, ambivalence, skepticism, and a lack of will power.

ReliStuPhD wrote:I'm happy to continue this conversation, but just be forewarned that as long as you hold to the belief that truth is not rational I won't be able to take anything you say seriously (which is generally how I approach irrationality that is not attached to numbers). So maybe you'll want to back off this silly train of thought and just admit that truth is rational, and that if God revealed "Him"self to humans, the concomitant belief in God would be rational as well. (And if you don't think God revealed "him"self to humans, you're not a Christian, so there's that.)

Feel free to keep talking, I'm not very interested in what you have to say.

ReliStuPhD wrote:PS Your "mood" is somewhat irrelevant here. If you're not in the "mood" to be coherent, you should probably just forgo posting here. We already have enough nonsense to go around.

I'm not interested in being dragged down further into this repetitive babbling madness, I have things I need to do.

ReliStuPhD wrote:I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure God's not overly concerned about who the mods ban.

I thought this 'God' was concerned with all aspects of creation? Still, my point was towards IC's 'God' of love wanting him to wish swift retribution?

Arising:

Who "wished him swift retribution"? I posted the fact of his departure purely because we cannot now press him for any further information on precisely what he meant by "love." That was all. I did not express any view on the matter beyond the factual.

That being said, IF someone did happen to become obstreperous on the board -- say, slandering, going racist, issuing obscenities, etc. -- and if the Mods were to remove him/her, I think that wouldn't amount to retribution, would it? If it did, it's incommensurate with harm done, and seems completely reasonable as a step for the Mods to take, doesn't it?

Calm down, lad.

ReliStuPhD wrote:I had a lot of responses ready, but then I got to this gem. In the interests of shortening the conversation rather than lengthening it...

SpheresOfBalance wrote:It's very common indeed for people to project todays visions/understanding/Standard Operating Procedures on people of thousands of years ago, because they are incapable of imagining anything else but what they know. Very hard indeed. So much so, that to speculate what was in a mans mind or heart all those years ago is almost always biased by what serves the man who's contemplating it today. Largely because he can always argue it, and no one can necessarily prove it wrong.

You've undermined yourself quite well here. Thanks for doing my work for me.
NO, THE POINT IS IT UNDERMINES BOTH OF OUR ARGUMENTS!!!!!
SO FINALLY YOU ADMIT IT, THANK YOU!!!!!!
YOU CAN'T KNOW, IT'S JUST WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE.
THANKS FOR FALLING INTO MY TRAP!!!!
YOU CAN'T HAVE IT ONE WAY MY FRIEND!!!

I"M DONE, I REST MY CASE!!!

RELIGIOUS NUTTERS ARE ALL IMAGINATION, JUST LIKE A CHILD THAT BELIEVES IN, "PUNCHING SANTA CLAUS," ER, UUH, I MEAN, "SANTA CLAUS!"


Ooops, one more:

ReliStuPhD wrote:And who exactly are "my kind?" Apostates? No, we don't normally excuse what Abraham did.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Believers of a god as presented in the bible, no?

Do you know what "apostate" means?

One final thing, NO! I'M NOT SAYING THERE IS NO CREATOR, HOW COULD I POSSIBLY, I'M JUST A PUNY HUMAN ANIMAL, JUST LIKE ALL THE REST, ONLY CAPABLE OF KNOWING MY TIME, NOT THAT OF OTHERS??? JUST THAT THERE IS NO GOD!!! THAT BOOK, AND ALL THAT SUPPORT IT, IS SO OBVIOUSLY B.S.!!!

Actually I've always been inclined to "believe," that there is a creator, that it's electromagnetic energy. You know, that which holds all of the universe together!

"Luke, use the FORCE!"

SpheresOfBalance wrote:NO, THE POINT IS IT UNDERMINES BOTH OF OUR ARGUMENTS!!!!!
SO FINALLY YOU ADMIT IT, THANK YOU!!!!!!
YOU CAN'T KNOW, IT'S JUST WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE.
THANKS FOR FALLING INTO MY TRAP!!!!
YOU CAN'T HAVE IT ONE WAY MY FRIEND!!!

I'll give you points for a humorous reply.

But seriously, you still haven't gotten the point. I was trying to undermine your insistence that there was no way Abraham's almost-killing if Isaac was "sacrifice." So when you undermine yourself, you do my job for me. I wasn't saying that, unequivocally, Abraham was making a sacrifice, but that we could try to put ourselves in his shoes and see how it might qualify as such (contra to your insistence that there was only one way to interpret it). When it comes to my argument, all you've done is agree that I was right to try and approach the situation from a standpoint that is not grounded in "today's visions/etc." So you undermine your insistence that there is only one way to understand Abraham's act—yours—and support my counter that we can try to get in his shoes, as it were, and see it from a different perspective.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I"M DONE, I REST MY CASE!!!

This implies you had one to begin with. You didn't.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:RELIGIOUS NUTTERS ARE ALL IMAGINATION, JUST LIKE A CHILD THAT BELIEVES IN, "PUNCHING SANTA CLAUS," ER, UUH, I MEAN, "SANTA CLAUS!"

What does my avatar about Muslims who consider Santa Claus to be blasphemy have to do with anything?

ReliStuPhD wrote:And who exactly are "my kind?" Apostates? No, we don't normally excuse what Abraham did.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Believers of a god as presented in the bible, no?
<snip>

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Believers One final thing, NO! I'M NOT SAYING THERE IS NO CREATOR, HOW COULD I POSSIBLY, I'M JUST A PUNY HUMAN ANIMAL, JUST LIKE ALL THE REST, ONLY CAPABLE OF KNOWING MY TIME, NOT THAT OF OTHERS??? JUST THAT THERE IS NO GOD!!! THAT BOOK, AND ALL THAT SUPPORT IT, IS SO OBVIOUSLY B.S.!!!

Actually I've always been inclined to "believe," that there is a creator, that it's electromagnetic energy. You know, that which holds all of the universe together!

"Luke, use the FORCE!"

So you still don't know what "apostate" means. And now you've shown that you don't even understand why I asked the question.