Point Refuted A Thousand Times (P.R.A.T.T.)

[bluegreenearth]

Regardless of your worldview, it is always frustrating and mentally exhausting when someone repeats an out-dated argument that has already been sufficiently refuted numerous times within the same or a different thread. Rather than having to remind the opposition of how the old argument they are attempting to use is demonstrably refuted, I propose we simply respond with the label "PRATT" along with the link to where the refutation was initially posted.

[Charles]

Regardless of your worldview, it is always frustrating and mentally exhausting when someone repeats an out-dated argument that has already been sufficiently refuted numerous times within the same or a different thread. Rather than having to remind the opposition of how the old argument they are attempting to use is demonstrably refuted, I propose we simply respond with the label "PRATT" along with the link to where the refutation was initially posted.

So do we who have refuted agnostic and atheist interpretations a thousand times get to use PRATT too?

Just because you believe what you write does not make it true.

[Zzyzx]

.

So do we who have refuted agnostic and atheist interpretations a thousand times get to use PRATT too?

Where have 'we' (whoever that means) been so successful refuting Agnostic and Atheist 'interpretations'? In church? Creationist forums? Christians only websites?

Theist 'killer arguments' that seem so compelling when there is no opposition do not fare at all well on our level playing field of debate where no point of view is given favorable treatment.

The site is owned by a devout Christian and moderated by a team of eight evenly balanced between Theists and Non-Theists. The Bible is NOT considered authoritative or proof of truth in this (C&A) sub-forum. The Bible cannot be used to prove truth and its claims and stories cannot be assumed to be true.

Just because you believe what you write does not make it true.

Likewise.

[Divine Insight]

Just because you believe what you write does not make it true.

The problem in the real world is that it's not just a matter of atheists versus theists. In fact, if that were the case theism would be in a far strong position than it actually is.

The problem is that even the theists cannot agree with each other on what they would like to claim their religions and deities are all about. The can't even come up with arguments compelling enough to convince each other.

Not only have there been a myriad of different cultural religious views throughout all of history. Views that have been extremely diametrically opposed. But even in today's day and age there are still countless disagreeing religions worldwide.

In addition to this even specific cultural religions cannot come to a consensus on what they claim to believe. The Abrahamic religions are probably the best example of this. We have at least three major factions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Clearly they cannot all be true.

But they don't even stop there, even these three major factions cannot agree among themselves. Jews, Christians, and Muslims have all created their own diverse factions of these main three faces of the Abrahamic myths.

Christianity itself has fallen into two main opposing theologies, Catholicism and the Protestantisms. And those have even grown to become more diverse internally with the Protestantism probably being the greatest example of theological disagreements the world has ever known.

And they all see each others theological arguments as P.R.A.T.T.

The bottom line is that there is no evidence for the existence of any God. None whatsoever. Much less any one of these specific offshoots of ancient mythology. An ancient mythology of a self-proclaimed egotistical God who decrees his own jealously and boasts of his extreme wrath if he is not properly appeased.

Why does anyone bother believing in ancient fables about a jealous God who will supposedly do nasty things to people who refuse to believe in him?

For me this is probably the most profound question of all.

Without question the Abrahamic God necessarily possesses personality traits that we would consider to be absolutely abhorrent if any human mortal man exhibited them. Yet for some strange reasons Abrahamic theists will argue to their death that it's ok for God to have these disgusting traits.

A God who casts people into an eternal hell fire of anguish if they don't appease him in a very precise manner. Including loving him for being an egotistical monster.

Now you may say, "But God is not an egotistical monster". The problem is that the Bible doesn't agree with this. The Bible has this God cursing his wrath on anyone who doesn't appease his desires and demands. This cannot be denied. The Biblical stories even have this God drowning out all of humanity at one point save for a few individuals who supposedly weren't so great anyway.

Where is there any reason to believe in these ancient myths?

Instead of complaining the P.R.A.T.T. doesn't fit why not try giving an argument that isn't P.R.A.T.T.

You can't because no such argument exists.

It's simply true that all apologies for these Abrahamic religions are indeed P.R.A.T.T.

There's just no getting around it.

And the atheists can't be said to be giving P.R.A.T.T. arguments, because the atheists aren't making any claims that cannot be backed up by real world evidence. Unless some particular atheists are actually claiming that there is no God at all. But that wouldn't be atheism. Instead it would be a claim to know that there is no God. That's not atheism.

Whether a God might exist or not is not the question. The real question is whether these theistic arguments for specific theologies hold any water and have not already been P.R.A.T.T.

Can you give one single argument for a specific God of an Abrahamic religion that isn't P.R.A.T.T.?

If you can I would love to hear it. But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it because I'm extremely confident after spending a half-a-century at this that no such argument exists.

But if you think you have one, let's hear it.

[bluegreenearth]

Regardless of your worldview, it is always frustrating and mentally exhausting when someone repeats an out-dated argument that has already been sufficiently refuted numerous times within the same or a different thread. Rather than having to remind the opposition of how the old argument they are attempting to use is demonstrably refuted, I propose we simply respond with the label "PRATT" along with the link to where the refutation was initially posted.

So do we who have refuted agnostic and atheist interpretations a thousand times get to use PRATT too?

Just because you believe what you write does not make it true.

Yes, PRATT would apply to agnostic and atheist arguments that have been repeatedly refuted. The presumption in every case, whether it is an argument from an atheist or a theist, is that the refutations have been legitimate and demonstrable. Of course, if anyone can show where the PRATT label has not been sufficiently justified, then that may be investigated. For instance, if the PRATT label is applied to a straw-man version of an argument, then the label may only apply to the straw-man and not necessarily to the actual argument being presented unless that exact argument has also been repeatedly refuted.

[bluegreenearth]

It is both relevant to the thread to point out that the content and style of the post have been refuted "a thousand" times, and ironic for the person who started a thread about how "frustrating and mentally exhausting" such repetitive content is to 'like' it rather than noting it as a case in point.

I am not personally aware that the post in question qualifies as a PRATT. The author of the post clearly indicated that the content of the post was directed at a specific theological perspective. To the best of my knowledge, the argument the post made against that particular theological perspective has not been refuted. Technically, because the post identified the specific theological perspective it was refuting and distinguished it from other theological perspectives, it is not a straw-man. Therefore, the "straw-manning" defense is not a valid refutation in this case. As such, there is no justification for labeling the post as a PRATT unless I've misinterpreted something.

I didn't say anything about your motivations for liking the post. I don't know what a "subscription to a confirmation bias" is; it sounds like a nonsense phrase, but perhaps it describes your own reasons for imagining that I had said something about motivation?

You stated there was an irony to the fact that I, the author of the OP, "liked" the post given your interpretation of it being a PRATT. The only reason to perceive irony in that situation is to presume I would not have been motivated to "like" the post if I had previously received your interpretation of it as a PRATT. That presumption was mistaken on two counts: 1) I'm not convinced by your interpretation that the post qualifies as a PRATT. 2) Even if I were convinced that the post qualified as a PRATT, I would still have "liked" it for being cathartic.

Here is a more thorough description of how I understand confirmation bias to operate on a subconscious level:Confirmation Bias

And what theological beliefs are you referring to here? I wasn't aware that I had any, but it's always refreshing to learn something new about oneself.

As for my comment about your theological beliefs, it is here where the irony may actually reside. Intellectual honesty compels me to acknowledge how confirmation bias could have influenced my subconscious in that regard based on the impression I received from your defense of miracle claims in another thread and your rhetoric in this thread. So, indeed, it is ironic that I may have fallen victim to subconscious confirmation bias in my attempt to make you aware of confirmation bias. Nevertheless, this too serves as as a cautionary tale by clearly demonstrating how easy it is for anyone, even those of us who understand confirmation bias, to subconsciously fall victim to it. Hopefully, I'm leading by example in honestly and openly considering where confirmation bias may have influenced my subconscious.