The Problem of Evil combined with the problem of Free Will

[Valyza1]

Oh, dear Zeus in the Clouds, I've been shamed out of DOING plenty of things! Shaming is an extremely effective finite term preventative tool, don't get me wrong.  Being shamed never changed or even effected what I believe.  

Sure it did.  Once upon a time you believed that it was acceptable to do or say x.  After having said or done x in view of people, they changed your mind about that, with shame.  You might even be in the position where you don't understand their response, and think it was unfair..but regardless of that, they definitely changed your belief about -something-.

I think you're confounding beliefs and habits. Knowing how to behave in social environments and society is a habit that needs to be trained into you. Negative reinforcement is often an effective tool for doing so. Actually believing something to be true is something that an individual decides on his or her own, whether gradually or instantly. It can be influenced by others giving evidence in it's favor, or it could just be something that "works" for a person psychologically, but it's an internal assent upon which fear and self-censorship have no power to influence.

I;d settle for that, personally. In my opinion, what people believe, so long as it's privately held, is no one else's business or problem. As long as bigots understand that their religion doesn't give them a pass for being bigots..I don't care that they believe bigoted shit. Feel me? It;s as if you think that ridicule is being applied to stop people from believing, rather than to oppose people who do or saying terrible shit -because- they believe?

Some people think ridicule helps the one being ridiculed by weakening the "ridiculous" belief. Some former believers even testify that it has. That's what I'm addressing.

I see what you're saying.  Congress is, after all, supposed to be a sound board for the People and reflect the interests of the populace.  So if you can shame enough loud mouth theocrats to silence, you can help turn the tide against any theocracy in our government.  I've only 2 things to note: 1)Fear of expression creates a duel consciousness, so the more true views are repressed in the seats of government, the more fuel is added to the fire of fringe groups representing those same views which, in turn, form revolutionary movements.  The public face of a movement, politician, or population is only effective for so long before it shows it's true colors.  2)Any point underlying a ridicule can be made clearer and more effectively by being made plain and uninflected instead, reaching an agreement and/or consideration by a much larger group of onlookers.

Personally, I prefer that the loudmouth theocrats keep talking, so that shame can be piled upon them in plain view of the less-loudmouthed but equally theocratic dipshits.   I appreciate that you think some sort of refined rational debate or conversation would work better.. but that hasn't been my experience, particularly with those whose rational and civil agency has been so effectively subverted by their religious beliefs that they go around mouthing off horrible shit for anyone and everyone to hear.

My experience has been otherwise, primarily when disavowing the idea that my position is the "correct position", and relying purely on question and answer and more questions to understand the other point of view. I'm not always able to come to some agreement, but I always come away learning something about my own pov, if not their's. It doesn't appear to be so much a lack of rationality, but defensiveness that closes people's minds to other points of view. And defensiveness is practically the instant natural reaction to ridicule.

These boards are a testament to the ineffectiveness of that approach, specifically with regards to some people™ and some beliefs™. There's been -plenty- of rational, civil discussion regarding them..from all corners. Those people nevertheless persist in their beliefs. No agreement has been reached. No additional consideration is made. Some of them believe in giants, actual giants.......ffs.

Go talk them out of that, all civil and rational-like, if you think that's how their beliefs work. Imma make jokes.

1)I'm not so much discussing the usefulness of rational conversation in these forums as I am discussing the uselessness of ridicule. In fact, my original post rather lamented the uselessness of both, until someone pointed out the usefulness of rational conversation, which is a weaker point for me to debate so I conceded.
2)I'm not trying to change anyone's beliefs. My whole point is to highlight the lack of progressiveness of the "I'm right, you're wrong" interchange.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think you're confounding beliefs and habits.  Knowing how to behave in social environments and society is a habit that needs to be trained into you.

-which is all I apply ridicule to achieve.  I know that nutters will still be nutters after they're ridiculed.  I know that they'll still be nutters after they've been reasoned with, all civil and such-like..... as well.

I don't care to change people's beliefs, my only concern is how they act upon those beliefs, or conversely, how those beliefs compel them to action.  

For example, the nutter who thinks gays should be put to death, because god says so...draws some shield..in his own mind, from maintaining that "god" says so.  We hear it all the time.  "God's rules, not mine".  Ridiculing that god is -one- way to show the believer that his perceived cover is not unimpeachable.  A fairy told him...in a book...that gays should be executed.  Let's all take him and his beliefs super serious, they totally deserve it. Let's have a reasoned and civil debate on the merits of his claim, because......

LOLNO!, what a complete moron. I didn't do what my imaginary friend told me to do when I was a child and this asshole is, presumably, a fully functioning non-psychotic adult.



(see, it's easy)

[Amarok]

Same as it helped take down slavers racists and other assorted scum . These idea's are deserving of shame . And shamed they will be .

Slavery and it's concomitant racism were taken down by shaming??? One of the most cherished traditions of southern white families was dismantled because people were getting their feelings hurt?  Really?  Wasn't there like a war or something that had a bit to do with that?

Ridicule of slavery lead to it's legal abolishment among European powers. That same culture of ridicule lead to abolishment in "most"  of the union states. The war may have freed the slaves but it did not change the pro slavery attitude. Ridicule of the culture of slavery did . Same as after WW2 the ridicule of the Klan using fictional characters pushed them to the fringes of society. Ridicule works !

[Valyza1]

I think you're confounding beliefs and habits.  Knowing how to behave in social environments and society is a habit that needs to be trained into you.

-which is all I apply ridicule to achieve.  I know that nutters will still be nutters after they're ridiculed.  I know that they'll still be nutters after they've been reasoned with, all civil and such-like..... as well.

I don't care to change people's beliefs, my only concern is how they act upon those beliefs, or conversely, how those beliefs compel them to action.  

Fair enough. Ridicule, or the fear of ridicule, may certainly keep them from acting upon those beliefs overtly for a certain period of time. Whether or not they'll act upon them covertly and/or after the fear subsides will likely depend on their true beliefs, however. How they act on their true beliefs will depend in large part on those influences that have earned their respect and attention, and it is not just the like-minded that earn people's respect and attention. It is those who, whether they agree or disagree, are willing to communicate.

For example, the nutter who thinks gays should be put to death, because god says so...draws some shield..in his own mind, from maintaining that "god" says so.  We hear it all the time.  "God's rules, not mine".  Ridiculing that god is -one- way to show the believer that his perceived cover is not unimpeachable.  A fairy told him...in a book...that gays should be executed.  Let's all take him and his beliefs super serious, they totally deserve it. Let's have a reasoned and civil debate on the merits of his claim, because......

Because it's the only way to communicate with him if it's at all possible. If the only good of ridicule is to show the believer that his faith is not impeachable, then it's already proved useless, because most religious paradigms include antagonists who will find all manner of fault with the belief. It only serves to prove the holy writ which predicted it. It isn't that the believer thinks her faith is unimpeachable, it's that she thinks all impeachments are error.

LOLNO!, what a complete moron. I didn't do what my imaginary friend told me to do when I was a child and this asshole is, presumably, a fully functioning non-psychotic adult.



(see, it's easy)

Yes, ridicule is easy. No argument there. The discussion is about it's usefulness.

[The Grand Nudger]

Fair enough.  Ridicule, or the fear of ridicule, may certainly keep them from acting upon those beliefs overtly for a certain period of time.  Whether or not they'll act upon them covertly and/or after the fear subsides will likely depend on their true beliefs, however.  How they act on their true beliefs will depend in large part on those influences that have earned their respect and attention, and it is not just the like-minded that earn people's respect and attention.  It is those who, whether they agree or disagree, are willing to communicate.

Hasn't been my experience, certainly doesn't seem to be at play on these boards.  

Because it's the only way to communicate with him if it's at all possible.  If the only good of ridicule is to show the believer that his faith is not impeachable, then it's already proved useless, because most religious paradigms include antagonists who will find all manner of fault with the belief.  It only serves to prove the holy writ which predicted it.   It isn't that the believer thinks her faith is unimpeachable, it's that she thinks all impeachments are error.  

Yes, yes, we know, believers heads are impervious to facts and prone to confirmation bias...but what about the combination of those two things screams out to you:

"will respond to reason and civil discourse"

.............................?

Yes, ridicule is easy.  No argument there.  The discussion is about it's usefulness.

I don't know..if it stops thick skulled nutters from doing nutty shit..even for a little while, -and- it makes me giggle.......that's pretty damned useful. Much more useful, in my opinion, than affording those same thick skulled nutters undue deference out of some misguided notion that if only I was nicer, they wouldn't be so shitty.

Pro-tip...if you're really doing it right, nutters don't recognize the fact that you're ridiculing them. Which pretty much takes that ridicule out of the causal loop for their nuttery..if it was ever in there..if there's some funhouse mirror version of reality where I'm personally responsible for their nuttiness, because I'm so totally mean. I have an easy suggestion for people who don't appreciate their beliefs being ridiculed. Either stop exposing yourselves to people who have a sense of decency, or get some beliefs that aren't ridiculous.

You can go ahead and take that for whatever it;s worth to you......

[Valyza1]

Fair enough.  Ridicule, or the fear of ridicule, may certainly keep them from acting upon those beliefs overtly for a certain period of time.  Whether or not they'll act upon them covertly and/or after the fear subsides will likely depend on their true beliefs, however.  How they act on their true beliefs will depend in large part on those influences that have earned their respect and attention, and it is not just the like-minded that earn people's respect and attention.  It is those who, whether they agree or disagree, are willing to communicate.

Hasn't been my experience, certainly doesn't seem to be at play on these boards.  

You give me the impression that your intention is to thwart, which is really kind of the opposite of communication, isn't it? I'm sure you aren't alone in that on these boards. However, for me, I have been able to communicate in a civilized way and did learn a thing or two about other points of view. I find it much more rewarding than simply defending a position.

Because it's the only way to communicate with him if it's at all possible.  If the only good of ridicule is to show the believer that his faith is not impeachable, then it's already proved useless, because most religious paradigms include antagonists who will find all manner of fault with the belief.  It only serves to prove the holy writ which predicted it.   It isn't that the believer thinks her faith is unimpeachable, it's that she thinks all impeachments are error.  

Yes, yes, we know, believers heads are impervious to facts and prone to confirmation bias...but what about the combination of those two things screams out to you:

"will respond to reason and civil discourse"

.............................?

The fact that they are heads with brains in them. Not all will be responsive but it's impossible to determine at the outset which ones will and which ones won't.

Yes, ridicule is easy.  No argument there.  The discussion is about it's usefulness.

I don't know..if it stops thick skulled nutters from doing nutty shit..even for a little while, -and- it makes me giggle.......that's pretty damned useful. Much more useful, in my opinion, than affording those same thick skulled nutters undue deference out of some misguided notion that if only I was nicer, they wouldn't be so shitty.

The notion is that like attracts like. This is borne out everywhere, actually, including this forum. I just had a rather lucid and educational conversation in this very thread with another poster.

Pro-tip...if you're really doing it right, nutters don't recognize the fact that you're ridiculing them. Which pretty much takes that ridicule out of the causal loop for their nuttery..if it was ever in there..if there's some funhouse mirror version of reality where I'm personally responsible for their nuttiness, because I'm so totally mean. I have an easy suggestion for people who don't appreciate their beliefs being ridiculed. Either stop exposing yourselves to people who have a sense of decency, or get some beliefs that aren't ridiculous.

You can go ahead and take that for whatever it;s worth to you......

It's entertaining . Never said there wasn't entertainment value to it

[The Grand Nudger]

You give me the impression that your intention is to thwart, which is really kind of the opposite of communication, isn't it?  I'm sure you aren't alone in that on these boards.  However, for me, I have been able to communicate in a civilized way and did learn a thing or two about other points of view.  I find it much more rewarding than simply defending a position.

When it works, sure.  In my experience, with the sort of nutters I apply ridicule to, all you're going to learn from them is that they're nuts.  

The fact that they are heads with brains in them.  Not all will be responsive but it's impossible to determine at the outset which ones will and which ones won't.  

Good thing we can figure that out real quick, eh?  

The notion is that like attracts like.  This is borne out everywhere, actually, including this forum.  I just had a rather lucid and educational conversation in this very thread with another poster.

That's a quaint notion.  You know, some nutters think that's a law of a the universe.  It's the basis of sympathetic magic, for example.  

It's entertaining . Never said there wasn't entertainment value to it

-and it keeps the nutters in line (according to you).  What's the problem?

[Drich]

God, apparently, is a lemon to be squeezed, lol.  You do you buddy, cash in on that.   

How much easier is death when there is no accountability to a God who likes his rules? Meaning how much easier will it be to die with the idea that there is no God?

To you, it probably wouldn't be easier.  Life and death in the absence of god, you've opined upon before, is a horrible proposition to you.

Death has no bite for me my confused brother. I was a very sickly kid and quite frequently on deaths door either via beating or illness. I have welcomed it more than once in my life. It's the following resurrection/accountablity I always had trouble with.

If there is no God there is no time or conscientiousness. it would be no different than the 1970's back for me. That's easy. the suffering and fear come in when we are promised to be judged as we have judged others.

To me, it's no more or less easy regardless.

Your right dying is the easy part.it the reawaking that's the bitch.

 It's not as if I get to choose whether or not to die in any case, or what happens to me after I die, if anything happens to me.  I suppose a terrible person with latent theistic beliefs might find themselves dreading their death if god exists...and relieved if god doesn't...but?  The sort of ludicrous rating of difficulty in death as regards the god proposition must have a necessarily limited subset of applicability, but for people who don;t believe, it;s a complete non issue that doesn't make death any more or less difficult.

 So because you talked yourself out of belief in God.. make death easier.. Isn't that what I said your condition would be?

You're simply projecting your own fears and doubts about what dreams may come onto others.  You should know, by now, Drich....that you're not like other people.  Your peculiarities are not theirs...lol...........

Indeed, but never the less we are all given one life to live and for that life we must all give an account.

---

Well, you seem to believe people are evil hearted without god. I believe that Jamal and his American counterpart deserve people to believe in them and guide them to make good choices.

Don't you know the oppsite is true? Everyone believing that they are always good leads to self righteousness. Google evergreen university stand off.
Here we have two groups of people two different view points both can't be right, yet both claim that they are.

The mentality that people are evil spreads hate in so many directions.

Who said anything about being evil.. there are many check points one must pass between being good and being evil.

No I'm not a pastors wife. Are you a pastor? If so, calling people stupid is not promoting Jesus' love.

Not much of a bible reader huh? I can count at least 1/2 a dozen times where Jesus Himself call people stupid or asked if they were.

Ive read way too much of the Bible

which convinced me that a god who tells his people to cut babies out of woman's tummies, commit genoicde on many different tribes, create a place where we can burn forever. I could go on and on about the character of you god that I will never worship even if your fairytale were true. 

i was about to say you haven't read enough of the bible to identify me asking you if you were stupid was a valid Christ like question to ask, yet you are all hung up on a little genocide.

Let me ask you as a Christian you do know you were not meant to be nor follow the laws of OT jews right?
 

Not everyone is of God. Ever heard the parable of the wheat and weeds/tares? Who are the tares? first what are tares? a tares is a cousin of wheat. it look just like wheat till it goes to seed, and instead of a golden brown seed you get a black one that is not eddible. Again which points back to what Jesus said about fruit. (how you identify a Christian verse a weed/tare) In the story God tell his servants to let them grow together and at the harvest separate them. lest we uproot the wheat when we pull the weeds.

Anyway as I was saying in the parable of mat 13 God plants a feild using the best seed, and that night his enmy came along and sowed tares alongside of the wheat. Which means in the field (The world) there are souls that belong to God and there are souls who do not. However God lets us grow together. Meaning we have all been given the same oppertunity to repent and atone for our sins.

So then how in your preacher wife's mind is that act of 'grace' an evil thing?

[The Grand Nudger]

Death has no bite for me my confused brother. I was a very sickly kid and quite frequently on deaths door either via beating or illness. I have welcomed it more than once in my life. It's the following resurrection/accountablity I always had trouble with.

If there is no God there is no time or conscientiousness. it would be no different than the 1970's back for me. That's easy. the suffering and fear come in when we are promised to be judged as we have judged others.

Mea culpa, it seems that you have a more internally confused position on matter than I expected.  Even though you've often commented on the disturbing meaninglessness of life and death in the absence of god..you also seem to harbor fear of future suffering in the event that god -does- exist.  I don't.  I don't harbor fear of future suffering if god does exist, or if god doesn't.  It seems to me that death will be difficult for you regardless, but..I guess, you think not.  

Your right dying is the easy part.it the reawaking that's the bitch.

Meh, that doesn't concern me either.  

 So because you talked yourself out of belief in God.. make death easier.. Isn't that what I said your condition would be?

I never believed in god to begin with, so I didn't have to talk myself in or out of anything.  You say alot of things.....lol.  Death, meanwhile is just as difficult, or easy...to me, regardless of the god question.

Indeed, but never the less we are all given one life to live and for that life we must all give an account.

You have faith based fears in that regard.  I don't.  If your beliefs were even remotely accurate, I guess I'd be standing there giving an account of my life.  And?  Is this the part where I'm supposed to quiver with fear and gnash my teeth and beg for gods grace? Probably not what's going to happen, eh, certainly hasn't happened yet.

As I mentioned previously, these little fears of yours have a limited subset of applicability.  Namely, yourself. It may be easier, for you (lol?) to die if there's no god..fearing that gods judgement of you...but I don't fear judgement. I'm afraid of stuff like the dark, and snakes...judgement, from a god or any other thing....just doesn't show up on that list.

[Valyza1]

You give me the impression that your intention is to thwart, which is really kind of the opposite of communication, isn't it?  I'm sure you aren't alone in that on these boards.  However, for me, I have been able to communicate in a civilized way and did learn a thing or two about other points of view.  I find it much more rewarding than simply defending a position.

When it works, sure.  In my experience, with the sort of nutters I apply ridicule to, all you're going to learn from them is that they're nuts.  

If you say so. I tend to think that if they don't actually identify what you're saying as ridicule, which often, as you say, is not overt, then they pick up on the error within the ridicule (most ridicules contain intentional propositional
falsities or exaggerations).

The notion is that like attracts like.  This is borne out everywhere, actually, including this forum.  I just had a rather lucid and educational conversation in this very thread with another poster.

That's a quaint notion.  You know, some nutters think that's a law of a the universe.  It's the basis of sympathetic magic, for example.  

I don't know if I'd ever claim it's a law of the universe, but it seems to be quite prevalent. What's your view on it?

It's entertaining . Never said there wasn't entertainment value to it

-and it keeps the nutters in line (according to you).  What's the problem?

Enmity