(June 5, 2015 at 5:36 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: If we can do this for disputed ethical, scientific and political beliefs, then why not say we can put forward rational arguments for religious beliefs that are not universally believed but nonetheless true?

You not understanding the answer to this question is part and parcel to much of the problems you have. Ethical and political arguments are subjective and can be settled through argument and compromise. Unfortunately they can also be settled through force.

Science is not settled in this manner. You insisting that it is betrays a severe misunderstanding on your part. There may be different conclusions drawn in science, but demonstration is the means of arbitration, not negotiation and compromise.

As far as religious claims it really depends on what you're talking about.

1. "God exists". Prove it. Just because you believe it doesn't make it possible, let alone probable.
2. "Don't eat shrimp". Whatever, more for me.
3. "God said don't eat shrimp". Until #1 is settled #2 still applies.
4. "Because I believe in God and he said don't eat shrimp I am going to use the power of the state to keep you from eating shrimp". Fuck off. You have yet to prove God exists let alone prove that he said I can't eat shrimp.
5. "I believe God says no shrimp, but here's the evidence that if you eat shrimp you'll die". Thanks bud, I won't eat shrimp.

As a disclaimer since your panties get twisted easily, the shrimp example is for illustration purposes only based on a well known OT prohibition and should not be in any way construed to mean I think you personally abide by this dictum or take it seriously.

(June 5, 2015 at 6:35 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Just because some conceptions of God are fictional, how does that prove that all conceptions of God are fiction?

Because not one god has ever been demonstrated to exist so it is far more reasonable to put yours in the Pantheon of imaginary friends than it is to assume he's the exception to the rule.

(June 5, 2015 at 7:12 pm)Cato Wrote:

(June 5, 2015 at 6:35 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Just because some conceptions of God are fictional, how does that prove that all conceptions of God are fiction?

Because not one god has ever been demonstrated to exist so it is far more reasonable to put yours in the Pantheon of imaginary friends than it is to assume he's the exception to the rule.

But it's not a proof, is it?

---

(June 5, 2015 at 7:08 pm)Cato Wrote:

(June 5, 2015 at 5:36 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: If we can do this for disputed ethical, scientific and political beliefs, then why not say we can put forward rational arguments for religious beliefs that are not universally believed but nonetheless true?

You not understanding the answer to this question is part and parcel to much of the problems you have. Ethical and political arguments are subjective and can be settled through argument and compromise. Unfortunately they can also be settled through force.

Science is not settled in this manner. You insisting that it is betrays a severe misunderstanding on your part. There may be different conclusions drawn in science, but demonstration is the means of arbitration, not negotiation and compromise.

As far as religious claims it really depends on what you're talking about.

1. "God exists". Prove it. Just because you believe it doesn't make it possible, let alone probable.
2. "Don't eat shrimp". Whatever, more for me.
3. "God said don't eat shrimp". Until #1 is settled #2 still applies.
4. "Because I believe in God and he said don't eat shrimp I am going to use the power of the state to keep you from eating shrimp". Fuck off. You have yet to prove God exists let alone prove that he said I can't eat shrimp.
5. "I believe God says no shrimp, but here's the evidence that if you eat shrimp you'll die". Thanks bud, I won't eat shrimp.

As a disclaimer since your panties get twisted easily, the shrimp example is for illustration purposes only based on a well known OT prohibition and should not be in any way construed to mean I think you personally abide by this dictum or take it seriously.

Either that or you didn't really understand my answer. 

(June 5, 2015 at 7:17 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: But it's not a proof, is it?

It's sufficient enough for you to discard claims for the thousands of other proposed gods.

It is a reasonable doubt.

(June 5, 2015 at 7:28 pm)Stimbo Wrote: It is a reasonable doubt.

Even if that were to be true (which I grant for the moment), it's only probable and not certain.

Consequently, we're both left in the position of having to argue that our conclusion is the most reasonable explanation of the facts as we interpret them.

(June 5, 2015 at 7:35 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Consequently, we're both left in the position of having to argue that our conclusion is the most reasonable explanation of the facts as we interpret them.

This misrepresents your position. I'll concede a draw with a deist so we can get on to more fruitful conversation, but I can't do this with you. Your God comes with wasted Sunday mornings, an organization that plays a shell game with sexual predators, transubstantiation, relics, stigmata, exorcisms, thought crimes, eternal punishment, homosexual bigotry, infallible Pope, 60 year old virgins giving marriage advice, global floods, a bullshit creation chronology, silly prohibitions of all sorts, impossible events called miracles, a small army of people who don't understand the burden of proof and for an entity that is supposed to know everything a severe lack of understanding of leprosy.

When you pile all this shit onto your idea of God your interpretation of the facts is no longer reasonable.

(May 15, 2015 at 5:11 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: I'm a Catholic. You have questions. Let's get started.

I see that criminal charges have been filed against the Catholic church in St. Paul.   http://www.startribune.com/archdiocese-c...306290431/  Since the church leaders have already admitted guilt do you think they will be thrown into the lake of fire on Judgment Day or will they get tickets into the giant gaudy golden cube called New Jerusalem?

(June 5, 2015 at 7:35 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 5, 2015 at 7:28 pm)Stimbo Wrote: It is a reasonable doubt.

Even if that were to be true (which I grant for the moment), it's only probable and not certain.

That's not saying much of anything; outside of very specific, simple things, we can't declare certainty about any concept without absurdly overreaching in our declarations. If you start waiting for certainty before you form your views you couldn't believe in, say, gravity, for one.

Quote:Consequently, we're both left in the position of having to argue that our conclusion is the most reasonable explanation of the facts as we interpret them.

I hear this from theists a lot, and to me it smacks of a demand that everyone else treat their views as though they were solipsists, where it's all just perception and nothing is real, but I notice that the same entreaty doesn't seem to apply for you: it's all just interpretation, yada yada, right up until the point where you're asked how you can determine that your religion is true, and then it's all "by the grace of god," which, aside from being a perfectly circular argument, pretty much sums up the self serving nature of this claim of yours. It's all just interpretation... but that doesn't stop you from proclaiming the existence of transcendent moral values and what have you, with nary a thought to this idea that it's all just subjective.

It seems the only time you remember that everything is interpretation, is when you're trying to get everyone else to admit it. But even if we're to take you seriously on this, not all interpretations are created equal, so to speak; this constant refrain that we have the same facts, but different interpretations doesn't entail that therefore those interpretations should be given equal weight. Here, I'll let Mr. Eberhard's blog explain it.

Incidentally, I would rather like to hear your answer to the question I posed a few pages back; it may have been snarky as hell, but it's still a legitimate question, since I have encountered theists who will cheerfully admit that yes, they have the power to dictate what the atheist's position is to them.

(June 5, 2015 at 7:55 pm)Cato Wrote:

(June 5, 2015 at 7:35 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Consequently, we're both left in the position of having to argue that our conclusion is the most reasonable explanation of the facts as we interpret them.

This misrepresents your position. I'll concede a draw with a deist so we can get on to more fruitful conversation, but I can't do this with you. Your God comes with wasted Sunday mornings, an organization that plays a shell game with sexual predators, transubstantiation, relics, stigmata, exorcisms, thought crimes, eternal punishment, homosexual bigotry, infallible Pope, 60 year old virgins giving marriage advice, global floods, a bullshit creation chronology, silly prohibitions of all sorts, impossible events called miracles, a small army of people who don't understand the burden of proof and for an entity that is supposed to know everything a severe lack of understanding of leprosy.

When you pile all this shit onto your idea of God your interpretation of the facts is no longer reasonable.

Pick your favorite argument against Catholicism...just one...and give me your question.

I don't respond to shotgun posts. One point at a time.

Thanks.

---

(June 5, 2015 at 8:15 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(May 15, 2015 at 5:11 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: I'm a Catholic. You have questions. Let's get started.

I see that criminal charges have been filed against the Catholic church in St. Paul.   http://www.startribune.com/archdiocese-c...306290431/  Since the church leaders have already admitted guilt do you think they will be thrown into the lake of fire on Judgment Day or will they get tickets into the giant gaudy golden cube called New Jerusalem?

If you ask for forgiveness, Wyrd, God will forgive even you.

---

(June 5, 2015 at 8:36 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(June 5, 2015 at 7:35 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Even if that were to be true (which I grant for the moment), it's only probable and not certain.

That's not saying much of anything; outside of very specific, simple things, we can't declare certainty about any concept without absurdly overreaching in our declarations. If you start waiting for certainty before you form your views you couldn't believe in, say, gravity, for one.

Quote:Consequently, we're both left in the position of having to argue that our conclusion is the most reasonable explanation of the facts as we interpret them.

I hear this from theists a lot, and to me it smacks of a demand that everyone else treat their views as though they were solipsists, where it's all just perception and nothing is real, but I notice that the same entreaty doesn't seem to apply for you: it's all just interpretation, yada yada, right up until the point where you're asked how you can determine that your religion is true, and then it's all "by the grace of god," which, aside from being a perfectly circular argument, pretty much sums up the self serving nature of this claim of yours. It's all just interpretation... but that doesn't stop you from proclaiming the existence of transcendent moral values and what have you, with nary a thought to this idea that it's all just subjective.

It seems the only time you remember that everything is interpretation, is when you're trying to get everyone else to admit it. But even if we're to take you seriously on this, not all interpretations are created equal, so to speak; this constant refrain that we have the same facts, but different interpretations doesn't entail that therefore those interpretations should be given equal weight. Here, I'll let Mr. Eberhard's blog explain it.

Incidentally, I would rather like to hear your answer to the question I posed a few pages back; it may have been snarky as hell, but it's still a legitimate question, since I have encountered theists who will cheerfully admit that yes, they have the power to dictate what the atheist's position is to them.

What was the question?