"I Doubted God After The Paris Attacks"

[Bubbles]

God's perfect plan for each of us you mean? Difficult to argue that doesn't then make God a bastard.

Yes when you come across a nasty death that happens close to you, so it can't be ignored, God would appear that way.
Especially if it happens to a child. 

I have no answers to that one.

But then I suppose I have my own definition of how I see God.
Which isn't Christian.

[Hope]

Whereas my lack of faith came about because of doubt, when it became overwhelming.

Precisely, and this and the post you quoted reiterate the importance of doubt in all things faith-related.

[Hope]

Argumentum ad populum.

Its not an argumentum ad populum OS (though no doubt Shakes would have tried the same tactic had the shoe been on the other foot).  It simply reminds us that every human being has different experiences during their lives and therefore arguing that one or more sets of experience are more or less valid than others is a fallacy.

[Shaker]

Its not an argumentum ad populum OS (though no doubt Shakes would have tried the same tactic had the shoe been on the other foot).

No, because Shakes can recognise a logical fallacy when he sees one.

And spends a lot of time here pointing them out to the purveyors of long-standing fallacies.

[floo]

Precisely, and this and the post you quoted reiterate the importance of doubt in all things faith-related.

As there is no evidence to support any faith one should have doubt, however much one wishes to believe it is true.

[Hope]

Maybe it was in the nature of a 'reality check' for him

I suspect, from what I've heard over the last week and more, that all the events that were originally referred to had believers questioning their faith.  It has certainly occurred to me on a number of occasions.  Doubt doesn't necessarily result in rejection of the idea/principle 'doubted'.

I think you overrate the power M. Hollande has at his disposal; its not like he can create universes out of thin air merely by an act of willpower.

As I am sure you appreciate, torri, my comment was an analogy.  It wasn't meant to be taken literally in the way that you have.

[Hope]

No, because Shakes can recognise a logical fallacy when he sees one.

And spends a lot of time here pointing them out to the purveyors of long-standing fallacies.

and often makes the same mistakes himself.  The 'log in one's own eye parable' comes to mind.

[Shaker]

and often makes the same mistakes himself.  The 'log in one's own eye parable' comes to mind.

Can we expect to see you point out, with quotes and links, these alleged "mistakes" given that you've signally failed to do so before despite repeated requests?

Or will it be another one on the ever-growing "Assertions that Hope has made and refused to provide a scrap of evidence for" pile? I remember this from three months ago:

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10489.msg548928#msg548928

and still every bit as unsubstantiated as all the others.

[Aruntraveller]

  It simply reminds us that every human being has different experiences during their lives and therefore arguing that one or more sets of experience are more or less valid than others is a fallacy.

I doubt you will see the sheer hypocrisy of what you have just posted.

However, your inability to see it makes it no less true.

[Hope]

I doubt you will see the sheer hypocrisy of what you have just posted.

However, your inability to see it makes it no less true.

No, I realised exactly what I had typed as I was typing it and felt quite happy in posting it.

[Hope]

Folk may be interested to read a piece that the Archbishop wrte after he had made the comments ath led to the comment that is the tread title.

Why arguing with God is not the same as not believing in him
The Archbishop of Canterbury·Monday, 23 November 2015

In a blog today Archbishop Justin Welby reflected on how headline writers interpreted his interview with BBC's Songs of Praise.

The Archbishop said:
 
Every now and then I spend a day kicking myself for getting things wrong. Yesterday was one of those days.

Last week I willingly agreed to do an interview for Songs of Praise in connection with the appalling attacks in Paris. During it, I was asked whether events like Paris ever caused me to doubt and question.

Foolishly, I said exactly what I thought, in a fairly lengthy discussion which particularly referred to Psalm 44.

The essence of my answer was that everyone has moments when they question things, and one sees that in the Psalms. The psalmist in Psalm 44 asks God if he is asleep, and challenges him in the most direct terms about his failure to deliver Israel. It is a psalm of protest.

When there are tragedies like Paris, when friends suffer, when evil seems to cover the face of the Earth, then we should be like the psalmist.

But that is not the same as a settled belief that God does not exist, or even any serious questioning about his reality. It's a moment of protest and arguing.

It's very much part of my normal prayer life, together with praise and wonder, with delight and awe, with petition and lament, with celebration and rejoicing.

So, for the record, I do believe in God, and that Jesus Christ is God himself, and I can say every word of the Creed without ever crossing my fingers once.

And why was I kicking myself? Because, even as I said it, I realised that it would be too tempting for an editor or headline writer to take things out of context, a long context of a whole discussion, and to make a good headline. I really need to remember that.

http://bit.ly/1T518vV

[Hope]

Can we expect to see you point out, with quotes and links, these alleged "mistakes" given that you've signally failed to do so before despite repeated requests?

I've pointed out a cxouple all ready on the threads they occur on, and will do so whenever I see the issue again - on the relevant threads.

[Shaker]

I've pointed out a cxouple all ready on the threads they occur on, and will do so whenever I see the issue again - on the relevant threads.

Links?

Or are you just going to hide behind an unsubstantiated claim of "Already posted it ... somewhere else ... some other time" yet again?

What will have happened this time? Will the mods have removed the relevant thread(s) or will the dog have been sick on them?

[BashfulAnthony]

Links?

Or are you just going to hide behind an unsubstantiated claim of "Already posted it ... somewhere else ... some other time" yet again?

What will have happened this time? Will the mods have removed the relevant thread(s) or will the dog have been sick on them?

A short while ago I asked you to point out where I had ignored taking up a swearing by On stage before it wore off,     You haven't done so: has the relevant post been removed by the mods, or has the dog been sick on it?   

[Shaker]

A short while ago I asked you to point out where I had ignored taking up a swearing by On stage before it wore off,     You haven't done so: has the relevant post been removed by the mods, or has the dog been sick on it?

That's peculiar, because I know precisely the instance you're referring to, and remember having to bring it to your attention despite the fact that you quoted Vlad's offending (to you) post without a murmur of disapprobation from you as to his language.

[BashfulAnthony]

That's peculiar, because I know precisely the instance you're referring to, and remember having to bring it to your attention despite the fact that you quoted Vlad's offending (to you) post without a murmur of disapprobation from you as to his language.

Link?

[Shaker]

No probs:

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10719.msg546287#msg546287

[Shaker]

Done up like a kipper, sunbeam 

[Aruntraveller]

No, I realised exactly what I had typed as I was typing it and felt quite happy in posting it.

Happy in your hypocrisy.

Twist in your sobriety.

[Shaker]

There's another song I haven't heard in donkey's years.

[Hope]

Happy in your hypocrisy.

Twist in your sobriety.

Not sure what is hypocritical about saying that everyone has different experiences of life and that arguing that one or more sets of experience are more or less valid than others is a fallacy.  That doesn't mean that one can't believe that Christianity (or any other philosophy) is the best way for humanity.  It just means that stating that other beliefs are invalid (something I've never done) is wrong.

[Hope]

There's another song I haven't heard in donkey's years.

Not surprised; you've been far too busy singing the 'argumentum ad ...' song.   

[BashfulAnthony]

No probs:

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10719.msg546287#msg546287

   How sad!  I wonder how long it took to trawl through to find that;  only for me to remind you that I would condemn anyone who used bad language.  So you wasted your time, just to try and score a cheap point.  What a loser!!

[BeRational]

  How sad!  I wonder how long it took to trawl through to find that;  only for me to remind you that I would condemn anyone who used bad language.  So you wasted your time, just to try and score a cheap point.  What a loser!!

But you did not condemn the post though, and that is the point.

[BashfulAnthony]

Done up like a kipper, sunbeam 

See, M47.  So, it's you, "done up like a kipper," but by yourself!!