The Problem of Evil combined with the problem of Free Will

[The Grand Nudger]

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).

My favorite form of ridicule contains no exaggerations, no falsity..and believers supply me with plenty of material for that.  I don't have to add a damn thing to their silly ass beliefs.  

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?

That it's a quaint notion.

Enmity

Which they already possess in spades.  I, the non-believer, am fallen and evil and destined to hell and dragging others along with me..incapable of truth, incapable of understanding their god, and incapable of offering legitimate criticism of their religion because there can -be- no such legitimate criticism of The Truth™.  

Honestly, how could I give nutters a dimmer view of myself or atheists than that which they already possess?  You tell me how, because I'd like to tease them with whatever that is, lol..any insight on that?

[Anon2381]

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

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.

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

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...........

Preach!

[Valyza1]

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).

My favorite form of ridicule contains no exaggerations, no falsity..and believers supply me with plenty of material for that.  I don't have to add a damn thing to their silly ass beliefs.  

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?

That it's a quaint notion.

Do you think there's any truth to it?

Enmity

Which they already possess in spades.  I, the non-believer, am fallen and evil and destined to hell and dragging others along with me..incapable of truth, incapable of understanding their god, and incapable of offering legitimate criticism of their religion because there can -be- no such legitimate criticism of The Truth™.  

Honestly, how could I give nutters a dimmer view of myself or atheists than that which they already possess?  You tell me how, because I'd like to tease them with whatever that is, lol..any insight on that?

Not necessarily dimmer, but strengthening whatever level of "dimness" is there by re-affirming any prejudice they may already have against you, just by continuing to ridicule. You make it sound like theists aren't even human and are unaffected, on a subconscious level, by what you contribute to the conversation. I find that to be highly unlikely.

[The Grand Nudger]

Example?

Sure.  Nutter A claims to have spoken to god.  In less than overt ridicule, I ask a bunch of questions about that conversation.  Not, mind you, because I want to "learn" about something that never happened..but because I can't wait to watch Nutter A trip all over his own peen in backpedaling.  He's not a crazy, you see, he meant something novel by that, it's not like he hears voices...like those other crazies....on and on and on....

Do you think there's any truth to it?

No, that sort of social magnetism..imo, is an empty deepity rooted in our ignorant past.  

Not necessarily dimmer, but strengthening whatever level of "dimness" is there by re-affirming any prejudice they may already have against you, just by continuing to ridicule.  You make it sound like theists aren't even human and are unaffected, on a subconscious level, by what you contribute to the conversation. I find that to be highly unlikely.  

I'm not reaffirming those prejudices, they are..and they don't need my help to do that....in fact, they can reaffirm those prejudices even when I do exactly the opposite of what -would- reaffirm them, and they do.  While you busy yourself coming up with some sort of enmity scale ...I'll simply remind you that if the sort of enmity nutballs have for non-believers is the baseline, from which it can be increased by mean words (boohoo snowflakes)..it doesn't matter much what comes up higher on that scale.  

Meanwhile, they've had their entire lives to have that baseline decreased...they've been around and spoken to non-believers pretty much every day of their existence...they're surrounded by them, and none of that, so far, led to any eureka moment you may be hoping for by being nice.  There's no shortage of people who, like yourself, insist on undue deference in the face of depravity.  People who honestly believe that by being nice to a terrible person, that person will somehow become less terrible themselves.  So...they;ve got that...they;ve got that all over the place.  The sorts of interactions you advocate for happen all the time.

-and yet they persist, and yet you persist.  Do you ever feel like Sisyphus, rolling that boulder up that hill only to watch it come tumbling back down, over and over?

[Harry Nevis]

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

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.

Don't act like you know this.  You just look more foolish, if that's possible.

 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?

"Talked yourself out of a belief"?  No, you talked yourself into one.  It's more like reasoning out of a belief.

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.

Who do we account to? Why?

---

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.

He didn't say "always good". And look who is calling who self-righteous.

[Valyza1]

Example?

Sure.  Nutter A claims to have spoken to god.  In less than overt ridicule, I ask a bunch of questions about that conversation.  Not, mind you, because I want to "learn" about something that never happened..but because I can't wait to watch Nutter A trip all over his own peen in backpedaling.  He's not a crazy, you see, he meant something novel by that, it's not like he hears voices...like those other crazies....on and on and on....

You don't think there could be some confirmation bias here? Because you're looking for the comedy, is it possible the search may be leading you to ask the kinds of questions which would most likely result in buffoonery? The reason I ask is because my goal is a bit different. It's to learn about their (and your) POV, and I rarely come across backpedalling or other such defensive moves, when I'm posting with that aim. I would personally find it pointless to come on a forum to ridicule or denounce others for what they believe, because if they truly believe it, it'll just manifest itself elsewhere in a less ridiculing environment. Rather, I prefer the legitimate non-presumptuous question and answer model, because it seems the only possible way that one, if not both of us, can learn something and/or legitimately change something. It isn't believing what they believe, but neither is it setting fire to what they believe. It is simply gathering information and learning.

Not necessarily dimmer, but strengthening whatever level of "dimness" is there by re-affirming any prejudice they may already have against you, just by continuing to ridicule.  You make it sound like theists aren't even human and are unaffected, on a subconscious level, by what you contribute to the conversation. I find that to be highly unlikely.  

I'm not reaffirming those prejudices, they are..and they don't need my help to do that....in fact, they can reaffirm those prejudices even when I do exactly the opposite of what -would- reaffirm them, and they do.  While you busy yourself coming up with some sort of enmity scale ...I'll simply remind you that if the sort of enmity nutballs have for non-believers is the baseline, from which it can be increased by mean words (boohoo snowflakes)..it doesn't matter much what comes up higher on that scale.  

Meanwhile, they've had their entire lives to have that baseline decreased...they've been around and spoken to non-believers pretty much every day of their existence...they're surrounded by them, and none of that, so far, led to any eureka moment you may be hoping for by being nice.  There's no shortage of people who, like yourself, insist on undue deference in the face of depravity.  People who honestly believe that by being nice to a terrible person, that person will somehow become less terrible themselves.  So...they;ve got that...they;ve got that all over the place.  The sorts of interactions you advocate for happen all the time.

And the way I see it, if just one of those interactions leads to a better understanding from either side, then it's worth it.

-and yet they persist, and yet you persist.  Do you ever feel like Sisyphus, rolling that boulder up that hill only to watch it come tumbling back down, over and over?

I don't, because every time I roll the boulder, I discover something new about it. What I learn along the way to achieving a goal is far more valuable than success. It's never a waste of time, unless you insist on viewing it that way. Suit yourself.

[The Grand Nudger]

You don't think there could be some confirmation bias here?  Because you're looking for the comedy, is it possible the search may be leading you to ask the kinds of questions which would most likely result in buffoonery?

They could always..you know, decide -not- to be buffoons....now couldn't they?  Let's assign credit where credit is due.  The fisherman doesn't make the fish.

The reason I ask is because my goal is a bit different.  It's to learn about their (and your) POV, and I rarely come across backpedalling or other such defensive moves, when I'm posting with that aim.  I would personally find it pointless to come on a forum to ridicule or denounce others for what they believe, because if they truly believe it, it'll just manifest itself elsewhere in a less ridiculing environment.  Rather, I prefer the legitimate non-presumptuous question and answer model, because it seems the only possible way that one, if not both of us, can learn something and/or legitimately change something.  It isn't believing what they believe, but neither is it setting fire to what they believe.  It is simply gathering information and learning.  

Ah, I see.  Well, GL with that, maybe one day we can get a summary of what you learned? 

And the way I see it, if just one of those interactions leads to a better understanding from either side, then it's worth it.  

Excellent, plenty of that is happening.  Now, if just -one- instance of ridicule actually leads to a better understanding, namely, that Nutter A reaches a better understanding of themselves and their position, and it;s place in the world and society and governance.............is it worth it?  

It takes a village to raise an idiot. Consider me the mean uncle?

I don't, because every time I roll the boulder, I discover something new about it.  What I learn along the way to achieving a goal is far more valuable than success.  It's never a waste of time, unless you insist on viewing it that way.  Suit yourself.

Oh, now I get it, you're new at this. 

[Valyza1]

You don't think there could be some confirmation bias here?  Because you're looking for the comedy, is it possible the search may be leading you to ask the kinds of questions which would most likely result in buffoonery?

They could always..you know, decide -not- to be buffoons....now couldn't they?  Let's assign credit where credit is due.  The fisherman doesn't make the fish.

Is that really the best analogy? A fish can't decide to be something other than be a fish and do what fishes do, a process which is exploited almost entirely by the fisherman for purely personal gain. You're saying it's the fish's fault for getting caught by the fisherman??

If we're going to extend the analogy, I would say I'm less of a fisherman and more of an aquatic observer. I don't want to necessarily catch a fish, but I do want to learn more about how it lives.

The reason I ask is because my goal is a bit different.  It's to learn about their (and your) POV, and I rarely come across backpedalling or other such defensive moves, when I'm posting with that aim.  I would personally find it pointless to come on a forum to ridicule or denounce others for what they believe, because if they truly believe it, it'll just manifest itself elsewhere in a less ridiculing environment.  Rather, I prefer the legitimate non-presumptuous question and answer model, because it seems the only possible way that one, if not both of us, can learn something and/or legitimately change something.  It isn't believing what they believe, but neither is it setting fire to what they believe.  It is simply gathering information and learning.  

Ah, I see.  Well, GL with that, maybe one day we can get a summary of what you learned? 

Were I more interested in the theist POV than the skeptic POV, I'd actually have entered this process with theists and have something to show you right now. I can't remember, however, the last time I had an in-depth conversation with a theist. Not because I find the theist impossible with which to have that kind of conversation, but because I find the skeptic side far more fascinating. I am not religious, but I'm pretty sure I'm a theist, but more importantly, someone who's fascinated by the questions raised by the dichotomy of theism and atheism.

And the way I see it, if just one of those interactions leads to a better understanding from either side, then it's worth it.  

Excellent, plenty of that is happening.  Now, if just -one- instance of ridicule actually leads to a better understanding, namely, that Nutter A reaches a better understanding of themselves and their position, and it;s place in the world and society and governance.............is it worth it?  

IF an instance of convivial interaction can't accomplish the same thing, then yes. That's a big if, IMO

[The Grand Nudger]

Is that really the best analogy?  A fish can't decide to be something other than be a fish and do what fishes do, a process which is exploited almost entirely by the fisherman for purely personal gain.

Can they, can they be something other than nutballs?  If they can, they sure don't employ that ability very often.

 You're saying it's the fish's fault for getting caught by the fisherman??

LOL, no Val, I'm saying that it's not my fault that they're fish.  I didn't make them that way.  Yes, I catch crazy fish- but I don't make them crazy fish.  

If we're going to extend the analogy, I would say I'm less of a fisherman and more of an aquatic observer.  I don't want to necessarily catch a fish, but I do want to learn more about how it lives.

That's cool.  I'm at a different point on the spectrum when it comes to relationships with nutters and learning how they live.  I've already observed their behaviors in their natural environment, lol.  I think that they're nutters because of what I;ve learned about their beliefs.  

Were I more interested in the theist POV than the skeptic POV, I'd actually have entered this process with theists and have something to show you right now.  I can't remember, however, the last time I had an in-depth conversation with a theist.  Not because I find the theist impossible with which to have that kind of conversation, but because I find the skeptic side far more fascinating.  I am not religious, but I'm pretty sure I'm a theist, but more importantly, someone who's fascinated by the questions raised by the dichotomy of theism and atheism.

I already figured that, and it's a pretty common song and dance we get around here, from theists, about how atheists are too mean and shouldn't be so mean because that just makes nutters nuttier. Catch any ridicule? I don;t plan on giving your religious ideas deference, and I don;t plan on giving your religious ideas about the deference your religious ideas deserve any deference. If you have ridiculous beliefs...I'm going to do you the service of not lying to your face about what I think of them. If you don't want to catch some ridicule for your beliefs...either don't share them, or get less ridiculous beliefs. It's no one else's responsibility to shield you from the consequences of your own beliefs.........doing so isn't even being polite, it's patronizing.

IF an instance of convivial interaction can't accomplish the same thing, then yes.  That's a big if, IMO

Well then, you apply the one.... I'll apply the other..and between us both we'll get em all.

[Valyza1]

Is that really the best analogy?  A fish can't decide to be something other than be a fish and do what fishes do, a process which is exploited almost entirely by the fisherman for purely personal gain.

Can they, can they be something other than nutballs?  If they can, they sure don't employ that ability very often.

In my experience, human beings are multifaceted. You can apply any label you like for the sake of convenience, but at the end of the day, you can't capture their value on a hook.

 You're saying it's the fish's fault for getting caught by the fisherman??

LOL, no Val, I'm saying that it's not my fault that they're fish.  I didn't make them that way.  Yes, I catch crazy fish- but I don't make them crazy fish.  

Well, then I agree with you there. I never suggested ridicule makes them believers in the first place. I only suggested the fish are going to flap their hardest when caught on the hook. Also, that it isn't a service to anyone but the fisherman or those ordering fish. I hate the analogy, and I don't know what eating the fish would be analogous to, but I'm doing my best with it.

Were I more interested in the theist POV than the skeptic POV, I'd actually have entered this process with theists and have something to show you right now.  I can't remember, however, the last time I had an in-depth conversation with a theist.  Not because I find the theist impossible with which to have that kind of conversation, but because I find the skeptic side far more fascinating.  I am not religious, but I'm pretty sure I'm a theist, but more importantly, someone who's fascinated by the questions raised by the dichotomy of theism and atheism.

I already figured that, and it's a pretty common song and dance we get around here, from theists, about how atheists are too mean and shouldn't be so mean because that just makes nutters nuttier.

I don't care if you're an atheist or theist, it isn't my place to determine how you can or can't behave. You can go out and murder a bunch of kids, and it still wouldn't be my place to tell you you're wrong, even though I would try to help preventative measures like the effort to keep you locked up. But I do consider it my place in a discussion forum to have a discussion worth having, and the topic of what's a better way to respond is interesting to me and i think is worth sharing my views on.

Catch any ridicule? I don;t plan on giving your religious ideas deference, and I don;t plan on giving your religious ideas about the deference your religious ideas deserve any deference. If you have ridiculous beliefs...I'm going to do you the service of not lying to your face about what I think of them. If you don't want to catch some ridicule for your beliefs...either don't share them, or get less ridiculous beliefs. It's no one else's responsibility to shield you from the consequences of your own beliefs.........doing so isn't even being polite, it's patronizing.

. I agree and would never expect anyone to shield me from the consequences of sharing my beliefs. That doesn't mean I shouldn't share my opinions on what are better and worse ways to respond. They may not do any good for you, but maybe they will for someone else. Not only that, but I wouldn't even know for sure how they affect you until I actually post them in the first place. I'm perfectly aware of what I might invoke by posting them, and accept the risk, because I find the potential rewards to be worth it.