Is man getting too big for the world?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

It's not about the special treatment though as we aren't close to getting there externally. It's an internal claim about the discussion. 'True for me' is a claim that there is no possibility of anything in common challenging that. 'True for everybody' is merely a large egoed TfM

But it is about special treatment when the Sassys of this world expect their personal faith belief in "God" to be treated differently from anyone else's persona faith belief in anything else - pixies included. No-one is challenging "true for me" claims, least of all me. I'm entirely indifferent to such beliefs. I merely look askance when someone overreaches as Sassy does into "true for you too" assertions and expects me to treat those assertions accordingly.

And that's what the discussion is (or was) about.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

Sassy, as I've said, sees deep meaning and significance and 'truth' in the Bible and presents this as evidence as she thinks it is obviously that and should be obvious to everyone else that her truth is correct. She thinks those who don't see it are intentionally ignoring it or just don't get the obvious. We're not really discussing why anyone else should agree with her but why Sassy's only answer to your question is to quote the Bible. I totally agree re the special rights etc Of course circular arguments are wrong but I don't think she is making the argument you state. I don't think she is saying God exists because the Bible says so but that she believes in God and that the has added to her beliefs and deeper understanding and thinks this should be obvious to others. She just can't get her head around people genuinely not having a belief in God.

So far as I can tell, she's precisely saying that God exists for me too because the Bible says so. At least that's the answer she gives whenever I ask her to support the claim.

If you say so.

I do.

Never gonna happen.

Probably not, but they should be given the opportunity to try at least shouldn't they rather than dismiss then out of hand?

[Maeght]

So far as I can tell, she's precisely saying that God exists for me too because the Bible says so. At least that's the answer she gives whenever I ask her to support the claim.

I think I covered my view on this in the last post.

I do.

Obviously.

Probably not, but they should be given the opportunity to try at least shouldn't they rather than dismiss then out of hand?

Dismiss out of hand? Odd phrase to use. It's about accepting that they aren't going to come up with what you would consider a logical argument in response to being asked for one on a discussion thread when they view this as an attack on their faith.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

But it is about special treatment when the Sassys of this world expect their personal faith belief in "God" to be treated differently from anyone else's persona faith belief in anything else - pixies included. No-one is challenging "true for me" claims, least of all me. I'm entirely indifferent to such beliefs. I merely look askance when someone overreaches as Sassy does into "true for you too" assertions and expects me to treat those assertions accordingly.

And that what the discussion is (or was) about.

We all work on true for me unless we work on agreed axioms. True for me is attempt to dress up 'I think' with a spunk collar of no point in discussing this reasonably.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

I think I covered my view on this in the last post.

I merely tell you how she replies whenever I ask her for an argument for a "true for you too" God that isn't circular - ie, with more circularity.

Dismiss out of hand? Odd phrase to use. It's about accepting that they aren't going to come up with what you would consider a logical argument in response to being asked for one on a discussion thread when they view this as an attack on their faith.

It's not about "what I would consider" a logical argument. Logic has to a significant extent been codified, and either a poster's attempts to argue are fallacious or they're not when benchmarked against that model. If someone views enquiry and challenge as an attack on her faith that's as may be, but it's irrelevant to the question of whether or not their beliefs should be afforded privileged treatment over different faith beliefs of others. As Stephen Fry famously commented, the correct answer when someone says, "you can't say that because I'm offended by it" is, "so fucking what?" (Christopher Hitchens's more polite reply was I think, "I'm still waiting for you to make an argument").   

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

We all work on true for me unless we work on agreed axioms.

But we do - or at least most of us do - work on agreed axioms for most purposes. Models using reason and evidence for example can through intersubjective experience be shown to be a better way to design aeroplanes and medicines than just guessing. It's a tough furrow to plough to junk that for just one aspect of human experience. 

True for me is attempt to dress up 'I think' with a spunk collar of no point in discussing this reasonably.

Well yes, but in that case what response is left but for "well fuck off then" when some try it to support their "true for you too" claims?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

NS,

I have no issue with people who say "true for me" because that's their "faith". What this is about though is those who claim "true for you too" on the same basis - and then make certain demands accordingly. And when they do that, if not for engaging with them at some level at least what else can we say - fuck off?

At least perhaps if one such person realises that she has no claim to special treatment for her beliefs then that's one "fuck off" needed fewer, which I think is a good thing.

If there is a God then of course he may be true for everybody.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

But we do - or at least most of us do - work on agreed axioms for most purposes. Models using reason and evidence for example can through intersubjective experience be shown to be a better way to design aeroplanes and medicines than just guessing. It's a tough furrow to plough to junk that for just one aspect of human experience. 

And in this discussion, so what? That's the consequence of accepting axioms. It would be useful if you didn't try and argue against a strawman here.

Well yes, but in that case what response is left but for "well fuck off then" when some try it to support their "true for you too" claims?

This reads like a non sequitur. I was making a point about what I see as being the problem with 'True for me' as having any worth other than an attempt to shut down discussion, why switch that to 'True for you'?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

And in this discussion, so what? That's the consequence of accepting axioms.

In this context of this discussion, so everything. The exchange I was having with Sassy concerned whether or not she had an argument for "God" that wasn't circular, the axiom being that circular reasoning is not a path to objective truths.   

It would be useful if you didn't try and argue against a strawman here.

I wasn't.

This reads like a non sequitur. I was making a point about what I see as being the problem with 'True for me' as having any worth other than an attempt to shut down discussion, why switch that to 'True for you'?

Because that's exactly what Sassy is attempting. She seems to think that a "true for me" truth must also be a "true for you truth" on the same basis that she accepts it to be true for her - faith and poor thinking.

[Sassy]

Sassy,

You're remarkably fond of accusing others of ignorance

IGNORANCE OF CHRISTIANITY AND THE BIBLE BY ATHEISTS.

That I am correct in, hence the fact we have to keep reminding you that you are wrong and lack knowledge.

yet seem unable to grasp that for the most part those people are capable of asking questions that you lack the intelligence or will to answer.

Neither, we as Christians, are fed up of people making uninformed suggestions or even allegations because you lack the basic information you don't need to be a Christian to know.

Look, I'll show you (again): How do you Sassy propose to break out of your circular reasoning of, "the Bible is true because God made it so/God is real because the Bible says so"?

Have never said that... never suggested that, never tried to prove that.
You see your ignorance is sublime when it comes to even the factual evidence of posts because YOU NEVER LEARN, and have no knowledge of the basic bible truths and Christianity.
Also as an atheist you have never learned anything for yourself, but adopted and displayed the things you have read written by others. 'Circular reason' cannot and does not apply to God. Hence the ignorance clearly displayed in that God gives everyone including you a way to know him. If you choose not to obey and follow that way to find out. Then the onus for failure is clearly on your part, and your part alone.

You can continue to avoid it if you want to, but you're entirely unhorsed when instead of answering you just chuck around misplaced accusations of ignorance.

As you can see, NOT AVOIDED ANYTHING FACED AND HIT IT STRAIGHT ON. You ignorance and lack of knowledge is an actual fact because you have never read what God wrote or even tried the ways he has taught. That clearly leaves me the person being slandered by an uneducated little boy who is a teenager and really riled now. Because you are not a truth seeker and you haven't the ability it appears to know what the truth is. Failings because you believe being ignorant is okay when it comes to God and the bible.

In truth your posts make what you spout as being ridiculous.

[Sassy]

Agreed

I think some people do believe it - if that is what you are asking.

This Christian does not believe the 9/11 happened because trans gender people share bathrooms with the same sex or opposite sex.

I think Christ made it clear when he said:-


13 There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.

2 And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?

3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?

5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

It is clear people do not die for someone else being worse sinners or because they were worse sinners.
In fact we are all responsible for our own sin. We cannot blame others for what we ourselves do.
So I do not believe the 9/11 was down to the using of a toilet facilities.
I truly believe God is a God of love and forgiveness. I cried the day as the 9/11 took place. At first I thought it a film as I walked in and saw it unfolding on tv. As I watched the second plane hit the towers I realised it was real.
I cried because I felt for everyone on those planes and their families and the sheer disbelief we call ourselves civil and people are throwing away lives as if they mean nothing.

God sent his Son to save our lives. Why would he take our lives because of a toilet incident?

We cannot fall from truth because our care and the  love and well-being of each other should be our main priority in life.
We get caught up in all those things that don't matter. We should concentrate on that which does matter. Loving our neighbours as ourselves and caring for them.

[Sassy]

Any average intelligence teenager can see the stupidity of such reasoning.

Explain the average intelligence and stupidity which caused men to fly planes full of people into buildings?
When has intelligence, being a teenager or reasoning had anything to do with the way you or suicide terrorist live your lives?
You see Leonard, that sentence does not give any weight or even any velocity or value to an argument of belief in God.

Describe who is God and bring proof of argument that he does not exist or that circular reasoning can actually define belief in God. YOU know it cannot. You have adopted other mens teachings but the lack of evidence you have depends entirely on your own ability to choose what you believe. And choose is exactly what you did. It had nothing to do with reasoning because given the evidence of those high profile evangelist who perform miracle healings... then Christ words have more evidence to support them than your own personal choice to disbelieve.

http://www1.cbn.com/miraculously-healed-while-reading-bible


http://www1.cbn.com/video/medically-confirmed-miracle

You see this is evidence that God answers prayers... No circular reasoning, medical evidence and medical facts.

My own sister diagnosed with breast cancer. A slow cancer and was preparing for surgery and treatment.
Medical evidence... but like the man in the second video her mass disappeared.

So before you want to suggest that the beliefs of a Christian are based on 'circular reasoning'  and "Any average intelligence teenager can see the stupidity of such reasoning." you might like to acknowledge and admit, at least our God gives results.
Your own belief is chosen and has less evidence of truth than  the beliefs you criticize of Christians.

You have far less to support your choice of belief. And in the face of the above evidence you did choose it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sassy,

Me:

Look, I'll show you (again): How do you Sassy propose to break out of your circular reasoning of, "the Bible is true because God made it so/God is real because the Bible says so"?

You:

Have never said that... never suggested that, never tried to prove that.

I've said it several times, and you've never answered it.

You see your ignorance is sublime when it comes to even the factual evidence of posts because YOU NEVER LEARN, and have no knowledge of the basic bible truths and Christianity.
Also as an atheist you have never learned anything for yourself, but adopted and displayed the things you have read written by others. 'Circular reason' cannot and does not apply to God. Hence the ignorance clearly displayed in that God gives everyone including you a way to know him. If you choose not to obey and follow that way to find out. Then the onus for failure is clearly on your part, and your part alone.

Leaving aside your rambling incoherence and insult, it's simple enough. You think not only that there is a "God", but that this god is an objective truth for me too if I did but know it. I ask you why you think this, and you quote bits from a book you think to be "holy" and therefore accurate.

I explain to you that this is circular reasoning ("the Bible is accurate because God made it so/God is real because the Bible says so"), that circular reasoning is always a wrong argument, and that you'd need something else therefore if you want to demonstrate a god that's true for me too.

You can't escape that. If you want your opinion on the objective existence of god to be taken seriously, then finally you need to support it with an argument that isn't hopeless: establish God without reference to a book saying so, or establish that the book is accurate without reference to God making it so. If you can do neither one of these, then you have no argument.

[Maeght]

This Christian does not believe the 9/11 happened because trans gender people share bathrooms with the same sex or opposite sex.

I didn't say that you did, but am pleased to hear you confirm that you don't.

[ippy]

Sass, if you don't understand any part of Blue's post, why not just say so and I'm sure Blue will clarify it for you.

I too would be interested to know how or if you could supply some evidence that confirms that your god idea has something to do with reality?

If you do decide to give an answer to Blue perhaps it might have a bit more merit if you were to answer the things he is asking of you, rather than quoting reams and reams of biblical script, which in itself it's fine for you but none of it's relevant to the question that Blue is asking of you.

I just wondered if it's ever occured to you that if you could provide some indisputable evidence that this he she or it thing you refer to as god does really exist, at a stroke no more atheists, think of all those brownie points you would be gaining Sass if you converted all of those terrible atheists?

ippy

[Brownie]

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/is.anne.graham.lotz.right.to.say.god.allowed.9.11.to.show.us.we.need.him/86189.htm

[Maeght]

Explain the average intelligence and stupidity which caused men to fly planes full of people into buildings?
When has intelligence, being a teenager or reasoning had anything to do with the way you or suicide terrorist live your lives?
You see Leonard, that sentence does not give any weight or even any velocity or value to an argument of belief in God.

Leonard wasn't referring to that though, he was referring to the point about the circular reasoning of, "the Bible is true because God made it so/God is real because the Bible says so".

[floo]

Leonard wasn't refrring to that though, he was referring to the point about the circular reasoning of, "the Bible is true because God made it so/God is real because the Bible says so".

Which is a totally unreasoned statement!

[ippy]

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/is.anne.graham.lotz.right.to.say.god.allowed.9.11.to.show.us.we.need.him/86189.htm

Yet another nut job Brownie, I despair as much about this kind of thinking as much as the despair about 9/11 suicide nutty thinking.

At least this woman hasn't killed anybody.

ippy

[Leonard James]

Leonard wasn't referring to that though, he was referring to the point about the circular reasoning of, "the Bible is true because God made it so/God is real because the Bible says so".

The only reason for belief in "God" is what has been written or said about him by other people.

[floo]

The only reason for belief in "God" is what has been written or said about him by other people.

Agreed. If it really exists why doesn't it appear in a way which is irrefutable?

[Leonard James]

Agreed. If it really exists why doesn't it appear in a way which is irrefutable?

Probably because he wants to sit back and laugh at infinite conceit of those who claim to "know" him.

[floo]

Probably because he wants to sit back and laugh at infinite conceit of those who claim to "know" him.

Maybe!

[Maeght]

The only reason for belief in "God" is what has been written or said about him by other people.

I think some people are wired to believe and what they read, hear, experience or are told 'makes sense' due to that and formalises the theology. I don't think many people form a belief just based on what they read or are told but what they believe develops due to this.

[Leonard James]

I think some people are wired to believe and what they read, hear, experience or are told 'makes sense' due to that and formalises the theology. I don't think many people form a belief just based on what they read or are told but what they believe develops due to this.

"Wired to believe" is just another way of saying that humans on the whole look for explanations for what they see. They are simply an inquisitive species.

The "god" beliefs only come when they read/hear about them.