How The Modern World Makes Us Mentally Ill

[SteveH]

Well the Christian god is evil. We are all condemned to death because some bloke in the past ate fruit from the wrong tree.

Complete and utter straw man. No sensible Christian believes that.

[Stranger]

That's what I think of you. You are trying to argue against the existence God by portraying him as absolutely evil.

• There is no real need to argue against the idea of god because the total absence of a sound argument or evidence for any (of the many different and contradictory) gods is quite enough to dismiss them.
  
  
• This is just pointing out another absurdity in your 'argument' that we are taking some sort of risk because many god concepts are unfalsifiable.
  
  
• I'm not portraying your god as absolutely evil, I'm pointing out that any god that was fair-minded (in the way understood by humans) would have produced a clear and unmistakable message, if it was important for us to hear it - which is clearly not the case.
  
  
• Further to the point on risk, you still haven't said why you think you are taking less risk by ignoring the (unfalsifiable) god that will punish you for believing in gods for no good reeason.
  
  
• Your arguments are already in tatters - see #405

[jeremyp]

Complete and utter straw man. No sensible Christian believes that.

What do they believe then?

"The wages of sin are death"? Where's the justice in that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

• There is no real need to argue against the idea of god because the total absence of a sound argument or evidence for any (of the many
  

And yet you've just rattled of a parable outlining an idea of god which you want us to take as rational.We can pick holes in it for instance you seem to ignore any facility for going to the top or any acknowledgement that people claim to have done so and found satisfaction. Or that the Premise you now inject that God is found absent is different from an admission that there may be a God.

You begin with your preference and then steer your parable to the conclusion you want.
[/list]

[Stranger]

Complete and utter straw man. No sensible Christian believes that.

I would suggest that there are a good many Christians who think it represents something and that, as a result, we all need 'saving' - which is just as bad as the literal interpretation.

I'm not sure what you mean by "sensible Christian" though - this seems to be a category I'm not familiar with...

[Stranger]

And yet you've just rattled of a parable outlining an idea of god which you want us to take as rational.
[/list]

Read the rest of the post - and be careful when editing replies, so as to avoid things like '[/list]'...

[SusanDoris]

What do they believe then?

"The wages of sin are death"? Where's the justice in that?

I will not be surprised to see that question avoided!

[ippy]

I've had a read through the latest posts on this thread and it looks to me we've got another Nicolas Marks, minus the righteous dynamic energy, Vlad has made his point that he's impenetrable to basic explanations of how everyday normal reasoning is for most people.

I don't think anyone will be able to penetrate this web of the magical, the mystical superstition based irrationality that he has wound around himself and when you add to that lot that he never answers anything asked of him, nor does he or has he given anything of a rational explanation of his reasoning, (loose term), for believing in this god stuff.

It would be quite interesting if Vlad was to deliver something, a really good logical/rational explanation for holding on to this obviously strongly held belief of his, I've  no doubt it'll be a long wait.

Regards ippy

[wigginhall]

Well, Pascal was a famous Christian, already quoted by Vlad, and he wrote this: 'Do not be surprised at the sight of simple people who believe without argument. God makes them love him and hate themselves.' (Pensées).

Well, Pascal was a well-known Jansenist, and they had a particularly gloomy view, but isn't that a horrible thought - to make people hate themselves?  Why would anyone search for a God who does that, except masochists?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've had a read through the latest posts on this thread and it looks to me we've got another Nicolas Marks, minus the righteous dynamic energy, Vlad has made his point that he's impenetrable to basic explanations of how everyday normal reasoning is for most people.

I don't think anyone will be able to penetrate this web of the magical, the mystical superstition based irrationality that he has wound around himself and when you add to that lot that he never answers anything asked of him, nor does he or has he given anything of a rational explanation of his reasoning, (loose term), for believing in this god stuff.

It would be quite interesting if Vlad was to deliver something, a really good logical/rational explanation for holding on to this obviously strongly held belief of his, I've  no doubt it'll be a long wait.

Regards ippy

First of all Ippy is your use of the word normal. This might represent normal thinking for an anglo saxon new atheist but is hardly normal in consideration of the worlds population so what ever else it is it is not statistically normal and thinking it is is a bit suspect.

Secondly, It all goes south from there.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

• There is no real need to argue against the idea of god because the total absence of a sound argument or evidence for any (of the many different and contradictory) gods is quite enough to dismiss them.
  
  

And yet you haven't......why is this.[/list]

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, Pascal was a famous Christian, already quoted by Vlad, and he wrote this: 'Do not be surprised at the sight of simple people who believe without argument. God makes them love him and hate themselves.' (Pensées).

Well, Pascal was a well-known Jansenist, and they had a particularly gloomy view, but isn't that a horrible thought - to make people hate themselves?  Why would anyone search for a God who does that, except masochists?

Thank you Wiggs, well that doesn't seemed veiled at all, as Stranger is arguing.

[Stranger]

And yet you haven't......why is this.[/list]

Haven't what? Dismissed the idea of gods (which I have done, and explained repeatedly)?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Haven't what? Dismissed the idea of gods (which I have done, and explained repeatedly)?

Nope, you say they are still possible which sounds a bit like your use of subjectivity for falsification argument. A cake and eat it one.[/list]

[Stranger]

Nope, you say they are still possible...

That doesn't mean that I haven't dismissed them. I'll add the meaning of the word 'dismiss' to the very long list of things you don't understand.

dismiss (sense 2) Treat as unworthy of serious consideration.

In case you're still confused, ponder the following...

• Have you dismissed the god that will punish you for believing in gods for no good reason?
  
  
• Have you dismissed the invisible purple unicorn?
  
  
• Do you have actual falsifications for either?

...which sounds a bit like your use of subjectivity for falsification argument. A cake and eat it one.[/list]

It's an argument you have not provided a counterargument for - blustering about subjectivity without providing specifics, doesn't count.

[/list]

Have you sprung a leak?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

dismiss (sense 2) Treat as unworthy of serious consideration.

How much serious consideration goes into that I wonder?[/list][/list]

[Walter]

Nope, you say they are still possible which sounds a bit like your use of subjectivity for falsification argument. A cake and eat it one.[/list]

what ? like 'domestos kills 99.9% of all germs' possibility ?  straws man , you're clutching at 'em .
Do yourself a favour and grow up .   

[Stranger]

How much serious consideration goes into that I wonder?[/list][/list]

A great deal more than you are giving to what I'm saying.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That doesn't mean that I haven't dismissed them. I'll add the meaning of the word 'dismiss' to the very long list of things you don't understand.

dismiss (sense 2) Treat as unworthy of serious consideration.

In case you're still confused, ponder the following...

• Have you dismissed the god that will punish you for believing in gods for no good reason?
  
  
• Have you dismissed the invisible purple unicorn?
  
  
• Do you have actual falsifications for either?

.
Your definition of good reason or say, Pascals?
No, the pink unicorn is low stake
[/list]
It's an argument you have not provided a counterargument for - blustering about subjectivity without providing specifics, doesn't count.

Have you sprung a leak?

[/list][/list]

[Stranger]

Do yourself a favour and grow up .

Give him a break, he wouldn't have anything to post if he did that...

[Stranger]

Your definition of good reason or say, Pascals?

Pascal seems to have made the same basic logical mistake you have but it's irrelevant anyway because the god of which I speak agrees with me on the subject.

No, the pink unicorn is low stake

That wasn't the question.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Pascal seems to have made the same basic logical mistake you have but it's irrelevant anyway because the god of which I speak agrees with me on the subject.

That wasn't the question.

It is low stake.  ''How can you have 'invisible pink''........... a technical hitch which, if you'll excuse the pun atheists seem to be completely blind to.

Your dismissal still remains high risk.
I haven't encountered your God and you haven't encountered him either nor will you because you have dismissed the search and others haven't.

Oh BTW isn't saying that most people share the same idea of justice and fair-mindedness an argumentum ad populum?

You are still saying that an argument for a God which you consider sensible somehow helps your atheism. Another cake and eat it argument?

I think ive gone over old ground here and am not leaving you time to reflect.

[Walter]

It is low stake.  ''How a you have 'invisible pink' a technical hitch which, if you'll excuse the pun atheists seem to be completely blind to.

Your dismissal still remains high risk.
I haven't encountered your God and you haven't encountered him either nor will you because you have dismissed the search and others haven't.

Oh BTW isn't saying that most people share the same idea of justice and fair-mindedness an argumentum ad populum?

You are still saying that an argument for a God which you consider sensible somehow helps your atheism. Another cake and eat it argument?

I think ive gone over old ground here and am not leaving you time to reflect.

I'm guessing you have no concept of how pathetic and skin crawlingly cringing your argument is .
for god sake man , have some self respect

[Stranger]

It is low stake.  ''How a you have 'invisible pink' a technical hitch which, if you'll excuse the pun atheists seem to be completely blind to.

I didn't ask you what the stakes were, I asked you if you'd dismissed it or not. Please try to keep up. The invisible pinkness is no more silly than most versions of Christianity.

Your dismissal still remains high risk.

No higher than your dismissal of the god that will punish you for your belief.

Oh BTW isn't saying that most people share the same idea of justice and fair-mindedness an argumentum ad populum?

No. Why can't you even be bothered to look these things up?

You are still saying that an argument for a God which you consider sensible somehow helps your atheism. Another cake and eat it argument?

That doesn't make sense - sorry, I mean it makes even less sense than your usual nonsense.

I have outlined a concept of god that is unfalsifiable and I'm asking you if you've dismissed it. The reason being that, according to what seems to pass as 'logic' in your mind, unless you can falsify it, you can't dismiss it.

I think ive gone over old ground here and am not leaving you time to reflect.

Reflect on what? You're spouting self-contradictory drivel and ignoring or misunderstanding pretty mush everything that is being said to you. It's long since ceased resembling anything like a sensible discussion - it's just hilarious watching you tie yourself in knots...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm guessing you have no concept of how pathetic and skin crawlingly cringing your argument is .
for god sake man , have some self respect

And could you actually tell me what my argument is in a nutshell?