RE: How do you know God isn't dead?
May 9, 2013 at 2:16 am
(This post was last modified: May 9, 2013 at 2:30 am by smax.)
On a final note, I'd like to address the issue of premise in this thread:
As I, and others, pointed out, the use of an obviously false premise is a common practice of non-theists. As evidence, I could reference at least 25 other threads on this site which used the same method to create a discussion. That said, I'm not surprised that some non-theists took exception to the approach. If you can't, at all, relate to religion, it's complete and utter nonsense to you, and the last thing you want to do is provoke it. I get that. However, those who have a religious background, and manage to graduate from it, most likely see things a little differently. From my perspective, almost all of the most important and effective questions a non-theist can pose to a theist, are ones posed from the theist's perspective. Theist's, in general, are suffering from mental illness. You can't just ask them to snap out of it. You have to finesse the situation so that you can expose holes and flaws in their delusion.
For this reason, Theists recognize that the use of a false premise to provoke critical thought, by non-theists, poses a significant threat to their beliefs, so naturally they object and ridicule the approach. As I said, however, those objections have never been an effective deterrent, as many non-theists have and still use the approach to great effect in comedy, parodies, speech, and debate.
In this thread, gods activity was called into question, and theists failed to uphold their position with any of their responses to that question. Instead, we saw deflection, insecurity, and completely ineffective and even dishonest apologetics.
As I, and others, pointed out, the use of an obviously false premise is a common practice of non-theists. As evidence, I could reference at least 25 other threads on this site which used the same method to create a discussion. That said, I'm not surprised that some non-theists took exception to the approach. If you can't, at all, relate to religion, it's complete and utter nonsense to you, and the last thing you want to do is provoke it. I get that. However, those who have a religious background, and manage to graduate from it, most likely see things a little differently. From my perspective, almost all of the most important and effective questions a non-theist can pose to a theist, are ones posed from the theist's perspective. Theist's, in general, are suffering from mental illness. You can't just ask them to snap out of it. You have to finesse the situation so that you can expose holes and flaws in their delusion.
For this reason, Theists recognize that the use of a false premise to provoke critical thought, by non-theists, poses a significant threat to their beliefs, so naturally they object and ridicule the approach. As I said, however, those objections have never been an effective deterrent, as many non-theists have and still use the approach to great effect in comedy, parodies, speech, and debate.
In this thread, gods activity was called into question, and theists failed to uphold their position with any of their responses to that question. Instead, we saw deflection, insecurity, and completely ineffective and even dishonest apologetics.