(May 11, 2025 at 7:17 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(May 11, 2025 at 7:10 am)Alan V Wrote: Yes, and other atheists addressed more difficult questions -- Victor Stenger for instance.  No one is good at everything, so we don't usually judge people by what they are not trying to do.

What bothered a lot of people is that Dawkins pointed out how laughable many common ideas of God are.  The problem we are trying to address in this discussion is what, exactly, is left of the God-concept after you eliminate the worst ideas?  Is there anything useful at all?

Well, OK. If we accept that Dawkins' isn't trying to argue that God is a delusion, but only certain popular ideas of it, then that lets him off the hook. 

The book is entitled The God Delusion, that seems pretty unequivocal to me. However it is asinine to imagine anyone could address every argument for every version of every deity, that humans have ever imagined to be real, in a single book. To me that idea, those criticisms, are what is comedic. 

People seem to criticise the book for what it is not, and what it was never intended to be, while sneering that it critiques belief in a deity they don't believe in, and then miss the irony of course.

The vast majority of theistic believers think prayer is useful. They can believe this only if they embrace the idea that God is both conscious and willful, that he will listen to prayers and respond if he sees fit. So a super-intelligence super-being it is.

(May 11, 2025 at 8:01 am)Alan V Wrote: The vast majority of theistic believers think prayer is useful.  They can believe this only if they embrace the idea that God is both conscious and willful, that he will listen to prayers and respond if he sees fit.  So a super-intelligence super-being it is.

Ah, the majority. They are always right.

(May 11, 2025 at 8:01 am)Alan V Wrote: The vast majority of theistic believers think prayer is useful.  They can believe this only if they embrace the idea that God is both conscious and willful, that he will listen to prayers and respond if he sees fit.  So a super-intelligence super-being it is.

They also seem to believe that prayer can't be tested, as if this deity magically switches its help off when we test the efficacy of it. Since it has been tested, using at least one set of double blind clinical trials, which found that the prayers had no discernible effect. 

Of course when what you pray for comes true, it is evidence that prayer has worked, then when it doesn't god is simply mysterious. You can't dent that rationale, obviously.

(May 11, 2025 at 8:09 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(May 11, 2025 at 8:01 am)Alan V Wrote: The vast majority of theistic believers think prayer is useful.  They can believe this only if they embrace the idea that God is both conscious and willful, that he will listen to prayers and respond if he sees fit.  So a super-intelligence super-being it is.

Ah, the majority. They are always right.

Where in that post did Alan remotely claim their belief was right?

Sheldon, since you're into AI, I got Grok to write up something for me. What it wrote is accurate, as far as I know:

Quote:In argumentation, what is the "principle of charity"?

The principle of charity in argumentation is the practice of interpreting an opponent's argument in its strongest, most coherent, and most reasonable form, even if the original presentation is unclear or flawed. It involves assuming the best intentions and giving the benefit of the doubt to ensure a fair and productive discussion. By reconstructing the argument to be as persuasive as possible, you engage with its substance rather than exploiting weaknesses in its expression. This fosters mutual understanding and avoids strawman fallacies.

What does it mean to "steel man" an argument?

To "steel man" an argument means to strengthen an opponent's position by presenting it in its most robust, coherent, and persuasive form, even beyond how it was originally expressed. This involves addressing the strongest possible version of their argument, filling in gaps, clarifying ambiguities, and assuming the best reasoning behind it. Unlike merely summarizing, steel-manning aims to engage with the most defensible interpretation to ensure a fair and rigorous debate, often as an extension of the principle of charity.

If you're genuinely interested in fair and rigorous debate, you might try some of these things.

How about he does neither of those things you can't make steel out of air nor should give charity to the burn down the orphanage fund

(May 11, 2025 at 8:14 am)Sheldon Wrote:

(May 11, 2025 at 8:09 am)Belacqua Wrote: Ah, the majority. They are always right.

Where in that post did Alan remotely claim their belief was right?

[Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmInkxbvlCs ]

2:08: "It's just a flesh-wound."

(May 11, 2025 at 8:19 am)Belacqua Wrote: Sheldon, since you're into AI, I got Grok to write up something for me. What it wrote is accurate, as far as I know:

Do you imagine dodging a legitimate question, about your fairly petty point scoring assumption, that misrepresented Alan's post, can really be deflected with what amounts to ad hominem? 

The real hilarity, is that you're actually trying to frame this dishonesty as some sort of moral high ground in debate, whilst indulging petty point scoring against me as well.

(May 11, 2025 at 8:27 am)Alan V Wrote:

(May 11, 2025 at 8:14 am)Sheldon Wrote: Where in that post did Alan remotely claim their belief was right?

[Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmInkxbvlCs ]

2:08: "It's just a flesh-wound."

He certainly went for denial via deflection, good call.