Is Suffering Part of God's Plan?
- Thread starter PetesSweets86
- Start date
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
Still ignoring that materialist leap of faith, aren't you. When you are willing to approach this objectively and honestly, we'll talk.
The truth is that approaching this issue from a materialist perspective is approaching it from a very one-sided perspective. Not approaching it from a materialist perspective is simple neutrality; it is not a "religious sided argument" as you claim. But it would take an understanding of what materialism is (a concept you don't even seem to consider real, in any sense).
Self-delusion and projection hardly make for a credible argument.
The point of his post is that god and religion must be learned. Any of his sarcasm and disdain aside, that much is true. People are not born with the knowledge of the bible and so on, therefore, atheism is a natural state. Well, in my opinion agnosticism would be a better term to use in this case than atheism, since atheism assumes a person is certain there is no god, and since a person with no knowledge of it would of course not have any opinion either way.
So, claim it is not materialist, attempt to remove all ideas from science and religion from the debate and still base your argument on an assumption of materialism? That seems more then a little self-serving.
Apparently you have never heard of the "faith instinct".
That argument that hrmwrm is making and you are echoing is based in faith; specifically that, "god and religion must be learned". It inherently assumes the notion of God is false and there is no transcendent God who can reveal himself. There is absolutely no way to prove that; it has to be accepted on faith. Also, inherently implied in that argument is, again, materialism, because of the assumption that "all that is left is nature". any transcendent reality is assumed away; faith.
All atheist arguments tend to hinge on that assumption of materialism. Try whatever rhetorical flourish to dodge confronting that assumption, but it is inherent. If materialism is not assumed, then Atheism ceases to be a "self-evident truth" as it is being treated by this argument.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
I have.... but, that is only theoretical. The faith instinct can also be explained as the need to explain that which people do not understand. The "faith instinct" has always seemed to me a rather self serving explanation by those who wish to justify their beliefs as a natural thing.
You edited your post.... oh well. Anyways, that is why I said that agnosticism would probably be a more appropriate fit to his explanation....
Your point? If you are simply going to continue to eschew theory and philosophy there is no point in continuing this conversation because that is where the heart of the differences on this lie.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
That is the very problem. If one assumes the "faith instinct" is real, then religion is natural, otherwise atheism or agnosticism is natural. You cannot simply ask a person to accept something like that just so that you can continue a discussion under those premises. Without clear proof that the "faith instinct" is real, one must assume that it is not real. Otherwise you are asking for a person to accept the existence of the faith instinct until they offer negative proof.
.
i take science and religion out and you don't have a leg left or something?
those are the 2 biggest bases. let's remove them and see what's left.
there is no attempt to argue for a god, because there is no knowledge of one, and no need to argue against, as it isn't there.
you have to be told.
since that yet hasn't happened, i sit comfortably.
if it exists, there should be some indication.
No, you are just ignorant of what you are talking about and attempting to make excuses to overcome the hurdle of materialism on which your Atheist faith rests.
Your argument is intellectually vacuous for a number of reasons. I will point out a few...
- It demonstrates an utter ignorance of the ideas it attempts to remove from the equation in the argument. This is mainly shown in two areas:
- The argument assumes away all preconceptions of science and religion, but that does not remove from the argument the notion of metaphysics and materialism, which is what the argument is ultimately attempting to overcome. This is because, while the ideas of metaphysics and materialism have profound implications for science and religion, they arise from PHILOSOPHY. In fact, the ideas can arguably be traced as far back as Aristotle and his Analogy of the Cave.
- The argument is less then consistent with it's handling of the idea of materialism. Which leads me to my next point...
- The argument is internally and intellectually inconsistent. Even if you expand the explicit premise of the argument to exclude any preconceptions of science, religion and philosophy, the argument is internally flawed. It attempts to assume away materialism yet premises it's argument on materialism by implicitly rejecting the notion of a transcendent God (or gods) capable of revealing himself (or themselves) to the world in some fashion, thus creating a basis for religion. In fact, the notion that there is no transcendent God capable of revealing himself is a notion that can not be logically or empirically proven. Yet this argument assumes that to be true because it views the natural world as being all that exists.
- The argument is rooted in abstraction from reality and inconsistent with Atheist views on religion and it's origins. Again, assuming no preconceived notions of science, religion and philosophy, the argument ignores the the Atheist explanation for how religion came about. Basically, people trying to make sense of phenomenon that were beyond their ability to empirically confirm (this is where the cynical idea of people using religion as a "crutch" comes from). In this sense, the argument abstracts itself from reality by ignoring the fact that a conception of a god is perfectly natural, even under materialist assumptions. Ironically, in eschewing philosophy, the argument makes the biggest mistake prone to philosophy; abstraction.
A word of advice hrmwrm, instead of attempting to circumvent the idea of materialism, embrace it. Research the concept of materialism (and it's lineage) as well as opposing ontological views (dualism, etc) and attempt to provide a logical justification for materialism. Then it would not simply be a preconception accepted by you on faith anymore, but a conclusion reached through reason. In short, take this as an opportunity to better yourself.
The faith instinct is based on the fact of our mortality in this relatively short life.
Although not all people share this instinct I think many need and want religion to bring some guidance and meaning to their life.
Our life only matters to us while we're alive so ultimately life can be easy to see as essentially meaningless and the thought of an afterlife brings hope and thoughts of there being something more to the mystery of existence than what we know here on earth.
I think that's an easy concept to understand.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
That is a gross over-generalization. You seem intent on only arguing this on terms favorable to your own argument. It is intellectually lazy and intellectually bankrupt as you say to refuse to understand the premise of an opponents argument. If you had a shred of intellectual honesty on this matter, you would step down from your high horse and quit trying to twist his statements to conform to your views. Your whole post was an ad hominem attack wherein you addressed his personal "flaws" instead of the issues he put forth in his posts. I often wonder why you get so easily angered by people who do not share your views. You need to realize that there are people out there with opinions and philosophies different from yours and that you aren't always right. I know, I know, you want to tell yourself that you have done all this research and came to such and such conclusion and you are sure you are right, but yeah, you aren't. God does not exist. Prove to me he does. Prove to me religion is right. Prove to me the bible is correct.
Your argument that Atheism is based in faith and an ignorance in the "flaws" of materialism is based in delusion and your position that atheism somehow has to prove God does not exist and that religion is wrong. As a fan of fallacies, you should realize you are asking for negative proof.
To be honest with you by the way. When I die, if I find myself standing at the pearly gates and am denied admission because I didn't believe in god, I will happily march my ass down to hell and party with Lucifer rather than live in a paradise run by a being who created me just to worship him.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
That is what is commonly mistaken for a faith instinct. The premise of a faith instinct is that people are born with a natural disposition to faith and religion. Being afraid of one's mortality and clinging to anything to quell that fear is not a faith instinct.
Actually, quite the opposite. But you clearly have no interest in acknowledging that.
The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it.
-George Bernard Shaw
So long as an opinion is strongly rooted in feelings, it gains rather then loses in stability by having a preponderating weight of argument against it. For if it were accepted as a result of argument, the refutation of the argument might shake the solidity of the conviction; but when it rests solely on feeling, the worse it fares in argumentative contest, the more persuaded are it's adherents that their feelings must have some deeper ground which the argument does not reach.
-John Stuart Mill
Just because I understand the premises behind hrmwrm's argument better then him (and apparently you) is no reason to start hurling baseless insults.
It is rather funny that, without any basis, you accuse me of making ad hominem attacks while doing nothing but engaging in ad hominem attacks yourself.
Feel free to keep demonstrating your childishness and destroy any credibility you have. At least, in frustrating any honest discussion, you provide some entertainment.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
Very well, then you should have no trouble proving that.
Baseless insults? Where? Why don't you go ahead and point them out. You seem to love making these accusations, but every time I have challenged them, you seem to be unable to point out your reasoning. You are nearly as obtuse as Foss when it comes to religious matters apparently. All you have done is misrepresent his posts on this matter and try and twist them to fit your own opinions.
Do you know what ad hominem argumentation is? I am addressing your post, you were addressing hrmwrm as a person instead of the points he made. You are attempting, by your post to argue that he is wrong by diminishing his credibility instead of arguing he is wrong by presenting counterpoints to his statements.
Feel free to keep demonstrating your childishness and destroy any credibility you have. At least, in frustrating any honest discussion, you provide some entertainment.
ORLY?
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
The irony of you posting these quotes..... well.... yeah. I can't help but laugh. Ah, thank you for that. I'm gonna get to bed, you have a good night and I hope you have a great Fourth of July, thanks for letting me go with a smile on my face. Make sure to celebrate our independence and liberty in style with the ones you care for and be safe this holiday.
How many posts are both of you going to devote stating why you don't need to explain and discuss a point?
Is there a point for going on a message board and simply repeating that you're not compelled to offer a thoughtful response?
If you're unwilling or unable to discuss topics, I suggest you stop posting threads with the goal of provocation.
Is there a point for going on a message board and simply repeating that you're not compelled to offer a thoughtful response?
If you're unwilling or unable to discuss topics, I suggest you stop posting threads with the goal of provocation.
Did you not read my post, could you not grasp it or are you simply too stubborn to admit that your argument doesn't exclude materialism and in fact still presumes it. You haven't countered anything in it. You are simply being contradictory.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
...... really....
I provided quite a few points. If you wish to throw out these types of accusations I challenge you to do the same I have challeged shag and foss with. Why don't you point out my posts in which I have done this. I have repeatedly tried to get him to address the points I have made, and they result in an ad hominem argument. If you are coming in here just to save shag, then why bother. You have insisted in the past that he is a great political thinker, and if he is, he should have better responses to the points I make than just smearing my character so he can dodge them. I have addressed materialism and the need for "faith" in atheism. Just because shag was not satisfied with my answer does not mean I dodged the question. His lack in satisfaction is rooted entirely in the fact that it does not fit his view.
The reason I don't generally respond to you challenges to "prove you wrong" concerning your accusations of fallacious arguments is because they are nothing more then accusations. You might, cite some gross misrepresentation/oversimplification of my post, but you provide no rationale to logically prove the claim. In fact, you often demonstrate an ignorance of the fallacy you are accusing me of.
In short, you don't make the case. You simply make the accusation. The burden of proof is still on you. To even respond would be to give your absurd excuses and misrepresentations more credibility then they have. I will give you one example. In post #122 you say this...
And yet the quote of me you cite in that post disproves that statement. In that quote I am confronting the flaws in the argument. This is made more clear when you go back to my original post. The majority of it is directed at showing the argument to be flawed. Citing personal flaws is incidental to that argument. For the argument to be ad hominem it has to hinge on those flaws, which my argument doesn't do.
This accusation, as with most all your accusations of fallacy is vacuous, intellectually lazy and an obvious attempt to simply rationalize a dismissal of the legitimate points raised. You simply throw out the accusation without any apparent understanding what does and does not qualify as the fallacy you are claiming, almost always misapplying the fallacy without actually logically making the case for the fallacy in question. At best, you make a gross generalization that; ignores the thrust of the post (or point) you are responding to, misrepresents what the post was saying and still demonstrates an ignorance of the fallacy you are claiming.
In fact, to misrepresent a post like that and then discredit that misrepresentation is a textbook example of a straw man fallacy.
When you engage in these cheap tactics you only show yourself to be petty, contentious for the sake of being contentious and a hindrance to any honest and productive political discussion.
Also, here he another example of fallacious reasoning...
Fallacy 1...
and fallacy 2...
Just because a source comes from a certain point of view does not mean that the source can not be, "objective, fair, balanced" and "thoughtful". That notion is rooted in ad hominem reasoning. A source can come from a certain point of view and still be "objective, fair, balanced" and "thoughtful".
In fact, there is no source that does not have a decided point of view they are approaching things from. CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, NYT, LAT, WaPo, NPR, etc. all have a decided political viewpoint from which they approach their coverage of the news.
FIND, when all you offer is gross, and misrepresentative generalizations, ignorant accusations of fallacy with no reasonable justification given and cheap excuses to dismiss opposing and/or unfamiliar views there is really nothing to respond to and you drag down the discussion.
Your excessive pride and unwillingness to consider opposing views or even considered that your understanding of certain things might be flawed in some fashion hinder any honest productive and civil discussion here.
In short, you don't make the case. You simply make the accusation. The burden of proof is still on you. To even respond would be to give your absurd excuses and misrepresentations more credibility then they have. I will give you one example. In post #122 you say this...
And yet the quote of me you cite in that post disproves that statement. In that quote I am confronting the flaws in the argument. This is made more clear when you go back to my original post. The majority of it is directed at showing the argument to be flawed. Citing personal flaws is incidental to that argument. For the argument to be ad hominem it has to hinge on those flaws, which my argument doesn't do.
This accusation, as with most all your accusations of fallacy is vacuous, intellectually lazy and an obvious attempt to simply rationalize a dismissal of the legitimate points raised. You simply throw out the accusation without any apparent understanding what does and does not qualify as the fallacy you are claiming, almost always misapplying the fallacy without actually logically making the case for the fallacy in question. At best, you make a gross generalization that; ignores the thrust of the post (or point) you are responding to, misrepresents what the post was saying and still demonstrates an ignorance of the fallacy you are claiming.
In fact, to misrepresent a post like that and then discredit that misrepresentation is a textbook example of a straw man fallacy.
When you engage in these cheap tactics you only show yourself to be petty, contentious for the sake of being contentious and a hindrance to any honest and productive political discussion.
Also, here he another example of fallacious reasoning...
Fallacy 1...
Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).
and fallacy 2...
The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.
The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question.[1] Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are irrelevant to its merits.
Just because the argument comes from a source with a certain point of view does not mean that the argument is flawed. The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question.[1] Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are irrelevant to its merits.
Just because a source comes from a certain point of view does not mean that the source can not be, "objective, fair, balanced" and "thoughtful". That notion is rooted in ad hominem reasoning. A source can come from a certain point of view and still be "objective, fair, balanced" and "thoughtful".
In fact, there is no source that does not have a decided point of view they are approaching things from. CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, NYT, LAT, WaPo, NPR, etc. all have a decided political viewpoint from which they approach their coverage of the news.
FIND, when all you offer is gross, and misrepresentative generalizations, ignorant accusations of fallacy with no reasonable justification given and cheap excuses to dismiss opposing and/or unfamiliar views there is really nothing to respond to and you drag down the discussion.
Your excessive pride and unwillingness to consider opposing views or even considered that your understanding of certain things might be flawed in some fashion hinder any honest productive and civil discussion here.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
No your entire post hinges on trying to make it appear that he is ignorant of the issues by redirecting and misrepresenting his statements.
There you go with those accusations again. No amount of verbosity will change the facts.
That would be true, if I had misrepresented the post. I stated that you overgeneralized, and should have added that you oversimplified. Then I pointed out that you made your post in an attempt to attack his credibility instead of addressing his statements. YOU created a straw man.
There you are with those accusations again.
No, this is not an example of such. This is a statement that I do not read them because their views are slanted. I am not discrediting them on that basis, or attempting to make a statement that their statements have no merit. I simply stated that I do not indulge in reading extreme right or left political rhetoric.
Once again, I am not discrediting the information from the sites based solely on the merit of their political views. I stated that I avoid reading that stuff because I do not enjoy reading things that are extremely slanted politically. I prefer when people take an academic approach to things. You put quite a lot of work into trying to establish this straw man. I am impressed. Besides, you are trying to argue that the source is legitimate because one cannot cite their political leanings as a source of doubt for the credibility of their opinions. So. Let's get this straight. A FACT coming from a slanted source is still a fact. The way the fact is presented, and the opinions surrounding that source are not credible. The reasoning behind an opinion can add to and establish the credibility of an opinion, but an opinion is still not a credible source.
coming from a certain point of view is the OPPOSITE of objective, fair and balanced. The principle of point of view is that it is subjective and slanted. Do you really buy into this rhetoric?
Most sources do have some slant. The key is to observe the degree in which it is slanted and gather information from multiple sources, then objectively analyze the information. To do this, I limit my number of sources to a manageable number, and I tend to stay away from the most extreme sources. I also try and view the most credible sources that can cite the greatest justification for their opinion or the ones that make an academic attempt at analysis of a situation.
I would love to repeat this to you right at this moment.
Pure ad hominem baseless rhetoric. Not that the rest of your post wasn't. You are trying to set up any excuse you can to resort to attacking me instead of the issues. How far exactly do you want to take this discussion off topic and away from the issues before you will feel comfortable and feel like you have won this discussion?
I want to ask you again, HOW OLD ARE YOU anyways? I have been guessing between 22 and 25 based upon other statements you have made. You certainly don't demonstrate that degree of maturity in your posts, despite the fact you try and cover it up with fallacies of verbosity.
Yet you can't show how I am misrepresenting his statements.
Focusing on the logical implications of and the rationale behind his statements instead of simply taking it a face value is called critical thought and critical thought is not misrepresentation.
It's pretty clear that you are being contention for it's own sake. Throwing any excuse against the wall to see what sticks is a petty way of justifying that contentiousness. If you think you are impressing anyone besides yourself, you are sorely mistaken.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
I can easily point that out. You only quoted the first line of what he said and tried to represent that as an attempt by him to circumvent the "leap of faith" materialism takes.
his entire post was:
His argument was that you are not born with knowledge of god, and that faith is not something you are born with, therefore you only gain faith and knowledge of god by being taught that. Therefore, lacking a belief in god is a natural condition and does not require a leap of faith when viewed in this matter. YOU tried to misrepresent that so you could redirect the argument back towards materialism and make an ad hominem attack against him so that you wouldn't have to address the statement he made.
Did you really think I couldn't point out how you misrepresented his statement? You were not presenting critical thought, you were constructing a straw man to redirect the argument. You only want to discuss this under very narrow conditions that you have constructed in a way that supports your point of view and argument.
Anyways, I am off to celebrate living in a great country like America. Hope you have a good holiday. If you want, we can continue this tomorrow some time.