Tooth Fairy Bullshit

[Catholic_Lady]

Interesting/civil discussion between Aroura and Neo. I hope you guys keep talking. It's interesting to read.

[ignoramus]

So, how much less nonexistent is the tooth fairy compared to Thor ?

Baneemy ?

Hera ?

Jesus ?

About 50 shades of cray!

[Aroura]

Thank you for taking the time to repost the info.

I see, this is like the WoW comparison.  The claim that God exists outside our reality, but interracts with it in undetectable ways.
Well, I normally do NOT debate theists, as I really have no interest in (de)converting you, but as you went to this trouble, it seems only polite to respond.

Here are a list of my counter arguments, in no particular order.

• I'm sure you have heard it, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  Numbers are not an extraordanary claim, for instance.
  
• Why do you say the tooth fairy is concrete substance? If god can interact with humans without a detectable trace, then why not other things? Truth does not interact with humans on it's own, we create the idea of truth.  The way humans wish to define God seems more like the Tooth Fairy to me than Truth, for example.
  
• "By our own criteria of "proof""....we don't ask for proof, but evidence.  I'm sure a resident scientist can explain better than I , but there is evidence for time, for instance.  There is literally no evidence whatsoever for God.
  
• Truth and possibilities and numbers are human created concepts. Are you saying God is a human created concept? If so, I fully agree.  There are many human created concepts that we have discarded because of inadequate evidence. The Id, super-ego concepts from Freud, for instance, have been discarded by modern psychologists.  Free-will is another you will see hotly debated, with many great modern thinkers discarding it (or redefining it to mean something entirely different than it used to).
  
• We still demand some evidence for the existence of concepts.  Mathematical formulas must have proofs, the passage of time can be demonstrated with a decaying apple, etc.
  
• My point is just because a humans thought it up, and even if most humans assume it exists (like free-will), if there is still no evidence whatsoever or any good demonstration of it, then the idea should be discarded. We do this with other human created concepts, the idea of God doesn't get a special pass.
  

Ok, I hope you can see I'm not trying to be insulting.  Peace.

Thank you. My point was not debate my examples; but rather, to show that “God exists,” is a philosophical proposition that has been debated throughout the centuries with the same seriousness as questions about time, numbers, etc. Suppose you are at a dinner party (forum) sitting at a table (thread) of five and two people are having discussion about Plantinga’s ontological argument, specifically his use of modal logic. Of course everyone at the table is welcome to join the conversation; it’s a party after all. But if another guest’s contribution is “You can’t logic your skydaddy, zombie-Jew into existence,” then he is just being a douche. It’s not even an argument. It’s an unwelcome quip. Go sit the loud and obnoxious table (a thread for just mocking). The point is that I have no problem when the atheist members want to mock religion among themselves. But if you’re directing that kind of comment at a Christian on a Philosophy thread, well, that’s just rude.

FWIW here are my stances with respect to the examples:

P2: Time exists. –I’m agnostic on the issue. I lean towards presentism, but eternalism seems just as plausible. In either case, I think time is based on related states and not any kind of extention.

P3: Numbers exist. –I’m a moderate realist. I feel that resolves the tension between Platonic forms and Aristotelian imminence and provides a satisfactory solution to the Problem of Universals.

P4: Truth exists. –I don’t really have a complete theory of truth, but I strongly favor those that have a place for the idea that some truths are proscriptive.

P5: Possibilities exist. –To me possibilities are not simply epistemological uncertainties; but rather, part of the nature of things, e.g. glass has within it a disposition to shatter regardless of whether or not it ever does.

Ok, I will grant you that HISTORICALLY speaking, I understand that it wasn't always a waste of great minds.  The theories had to be covered, and ideas explored.

But now that solid counter-arguments exist, and have for quite some time now, that have not been countered again, as it were, it's time to let it go.  Once a person has learned, and repeated these arguments numerous times, it just becomes easier to go to snarky dismissal, I suppose, since the well thought logical rebuttals (repeated ad-nauseum) got them nowhere, I suppose the average person goes for the quick fix.  

Not many of us have the mental stamina and emotional wherewithal of Dawkins and Harris, to tolerate hearing the same exact misconceptions, logical fallacies, and failed philosophies over and over with patience and a smile.

---

P.S. Thank you for the civil discussion, though. It's nice to not name call. It's one of the reasons I keep wanting to leave. I enjoy discussion, but not when people start name calling.

At any rate, It seems neither of us really wants to debate. I don't think I'd have anything else meaningful to contribute at this time, anyway.

[LastPoet]

Thank you. My point was not debate my examples; but rather, to show that “God exists,” is a philosophical proposition that has been debated throughout the centuries with the same seriousness as questions about time, numbers, etc. Suppose you are at a dinner party (forum) sitting at a table (thread) of five and two people are having discussion about Plantinga’s ontological argument, specifically his use of modal logic. Of course everyone at the table is welcome to join the conversation; it’s a party after all. But if another guest’s contribution is “You can’t logic your skydaddy, zombie-Jew into existence,” then he is just being a douche. It’s not even an argument. It’s an unwelcome quip. Go sit the loud and obnoxious table (a thread for just mocking). The point is that I have no problem when the atheist members want to mock religion among themselves. But if you’re directing that kind of comment at a Christian on a Philosophy thread, well, that’s just rude.

FWIW here are my stances with respect to the examples:

P2: Time exists. –I’m agnostic on the issue. I lean towards presentism, but eternalism seems just as plausible. In either case, I think time is based on related states and not any kind of extention.

P3: Numbers exist. –I’m a moderate realist. I feel that resolves the tension between Platonic forms and Aristotelian imminence and provides a satisfactory solution to the Problem of Universals.

P4: Truth exists. –I don’t really have a complete theory of truth, but I strongly favor those that have a place for the idea that some truths are proscriptive.

P5: Possibilities exist. –To me possibilities are not simply epistemological uncertainties; but rather, part of the nature of things, e.g. glass has within it a disposition to shatter regardless of whether or not it ever does.

Ok, I will grant you that HISTORICALLY speaking, I understand that it wasn't always a waste of great minds.  The theories had to be covered, and ideas explored.

But now that solid counter-arguments exist, and have for quite some time now, that have not been countered again, as it were, it's time to let it go.  Once a person has learned, and repeated these arguments numerous times, it just becomes easier to go to snarky dismissal, I suppose, since the well thought logical rebuttals (repeated ad-nauseum) got them nowhere, I suppose the average person goes for the quick fix.  

Not many of us have the mental stamina and emotional wherewithal of Dawkins and Harris, to tolerate hearing the same exact misconceptions, logical fallacies, and failed philosophies over and over with patience and a smile.

---

P.S. Thank you for the civil discussion, though.  It's nice to not name call. It's one of the reasons I keep wanting to leave. I enjoy discussion, but not when people start name calling.

At any rate, It seems neither of us really wants to debate.  I don't think I'd have anything else meaningful to contribute at this time, anyway.

"I offend people"

-Megatron.

[LastPoet]

Jokes aside, I will never excuse myself for telling people how I feel about their beliefs. It is offensive, then perhaps your beliefs are not as secure as you claim.

In other words, should we bring back the inquisition, to compensate for the believers lack of faith?

[Pat Mustard]

Basically this whole thread has boiled down to Wooters declaring that he alone has the right to declare what is true and to offend others on these fora, and the rest of us calling him out on his bullshit, while Catholic Lady stands in Wooters' corner egging him on.

Well the hardline catlicks have to stand together. God knows few enough people listen to Mother Rome as is.

[Cecelia]

Honestly, why should I care about offending Christians when most of them really don't care about offending anyone else? I mean if they treat people with respect, I'll treat them with respect. But if they rail against gay people or talk about how it's a sin and how those people are going to hell.. they're being dicks, so I'm going to call a sky monster a sky monster.

[Cyberman]

[LastPoet]

Basically this whole thread has boiled down to Wooters declaring that he alone has the right to declare what is true and to offend others on these fora, and the rest of us calling him out on his bullshit, while Catholic Lady stands in Wooters' corner egging him on.

Well the hardline catlicks have to stand together. God knows few enough people listen to Mother Rome as is.

I heed only the voice of the dark lord Mother Russia.

[Cyberman]

In Mother Russia, voices heed you.