Stories

[The Reality Salesman01]

I've been away for a while, sorry if this one has already been spread around. I like this guy's videos and I've just see this one for the first time. Like the other ones he's made, it's pretty damn good and I'm always interested in reading what you all have to add. See ya around!

[Godscreated]

I've been away for a while, sorry if this one has already been spread around. I like this guy's videos and I've just see this one for the first time. Like the other ones he's made, it's pretty damn good and I'm always interested in reading what you all have to add. See ya around!

He's doing nothing more than he accuses the original story teller of doing, maybe worse. The original story teller was telling a story from a specific belief and pointing to a specific idea.

GC

[Norman Humann]

He's doing nothing more than he accuses the original story teller of doing, maybe worse. The original story teller was telling a story from a specific belief and pointing to a specific idea.

GC

The difference being that he isn't presenting irrational beliefs as the ultimate truth. It's blatantly obvious you either didn't understand a single word of what was said in the video or didn't watch it at all.

---

Great work. I've heard the allegories he talked about a million times and when you are a theist, you really don't see any of the apparent problems with them.

[The Reality Salesman01]

He's doing nothing more than he accuses the original story teller of doing, maybe worse. The original story teller was telling a story from a specific belief and pointing to a specific idea.

GC

Your observation is exactly right. It's also incomplete. I do get the feeling that you missed the end. If you did watch it all, then it appears that you were unable to comprehend what the video was explaining. It demonstrated that stories like this are only effective in reinforcing beliefs that people already think are true. The original story teller was telling the story with a belief in his mind already, you got that part right (it wasn't a subtle implication). I don't think you're pretending not to know that stories like this are used all the time as arguments in support of religious beliefs as an attempt to rationalize them to others who say it's irrational. It occurred to me that you may not have understood any of it. The story being told was an attempt to correlate the skeptical mice with Atheists and how they are all foolish for criticizing the mice who believed that there was a person responsible for making the music (Monotheists with regards to God and all creation). If you didn't understand what the story was implying, that would explain a lot about why it seems you don't understand any of the arguments put to you. Nevertheless, the video went on to explain that while this story does illustrate why a religious people find it compelling to further their belief. Anyone who thinks that a story like that is a sound justification for a God is simply blinded by the trees and unable to see the entirety of the forest. Do you understand that expression?...Google what it means to be unable to see the forest from the trees. I can't beleive its only just occurred to me that its not that you are just inept at drawing accurate conclusions by making rational inferences when it comes to arguments against religion, you very well may be entirely incompetent in that area. Ugh...what a waste of time.

[Exian]

The point of telling the other mice stories was to illustrate how the metaphor could be used to justify any and every belief system, rendering it useless as a rational buttress for any one belief system.

[Godscreated]

He's doing nothing more than he accuses the original story teller of doing, maybe worse. The original story teller was telling a story from a specific belief and pointing to a specific idea.

GC

The difference being that he isn't presenting irrational beliefs as the ultimate truth. It's blatantly obvious you either didn't understand a single word of what was said in the video or didn't watch it at all.

---

Great work. I've heard the allegories he talked about a million times and when you are a theist, you really don't see any of the apparent problems with them.

I see the problem with his stories, I'm not biased towards them. That is the same thing you're saying, right. I listened with open ears, unlike you would do. I saw the problems in his stories that he was applying to the first story. Unlike you I was able to give a statement without bashing someone. You are arguing from the assumption there's no God, yet you lack the proof of this. To make such an argument, you need to argue from a point and you have none.

GC

[Norman Humann]

I see the problem with his stories, I'm not biased towards them. That is the same thing you're saying, right. I listened with open ears, unlike you would do. I saw the problems in his stories that he was applying to the first story. Unlike you I was able to give a statement without bashing someone. You are arguing from the assumption there's no God, yet you lack the proof of this. To make such an argument, you need to argue from a point and you have none.

GC

What were the problems with his stories? The fact that he fabricated them the same way the first one was fabricated? How does that make his stories less valid than the first one?

Well, you are arguing from the assumption that there is a god even though you have no proof of this. How is your point more valid than mine?

Also, read TRS' response to you. It explains the purpose of the video much better than I can do.

[The Reality Salesman01]

I see the problem with his stories, I'm not biased towards them. That is the same thing you're saying, right. I listened with open ears, unlike you would do. I saw the problems in his stories that he was applying to the first story. Unlike you I was able to give a statement without bashing someone. You are arguing from the assumption there's no God, yet you lack the proof of this. To make such an argument, you need to argue from a point and you have none.

GC

Arguing from the assumption that there's no God? No. I don't believe in God. I'm arguing with someone who believes in God. I can assume there isn't a buffalo in my refrigerator. I can assume that because I know what a buffalo is and I have an understanding of what could fit in my refrigerator. I can assume that more reasonable objects are not in my refrigerator such as sour kraut because I don't eat it or buy it and therefore I can safely assume there's no sout kraut in my fridge. I don't know anything about gods at all. I can't even begin to tell you why a God isn't in my fridge or anywhere else for that matter. "Assume" does not and cannot accurately describe my attitude toward the word "God". If you believe in God, and you attempt to convince me, I can reject your belief on the basis of your descriptions. I don't have to know or assume anything about gods to do that. Your words are fallible and the logical inconsistencies are enough to prevent me from adding Gods to a list of things that may or may not be in my refridgetator, much less anywhere else. Do you understand?

[Exian]

I wouldn't think your bias would be with the other stories. I'm only assuming, but I would guess your bias lies with the first story.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you may still be missing the point, GC. Because of your bias, you were unable to see the holes in the first story, so in order to reveal the holes, he presents other versions of the same story with the same level of rationale (that's not saying much) that support other religious ideas, which you called "maybe worse", showing your bias.

---

Anyhow, thanks for this video, TRS. It perfectly elucidates two things that I'm very guilty of: suspension of disbelief, and, curiously at the same time, an inability to tell good stories. I'll definitely be following him. Good find.

[Faith No More]

Assuming GC missed the point is no different than assuming there is no buffalo in the refrigerator.