Consolidation: Can we?

[daedalus 2.0]

It's starting to get repetitive.
It's starting to get repetitive.
It's starting to get repetitive.

We have discussed the topics over and over again.

In what way can we at least come to some conclusions and consolidate some of the arguments.

For example, can we at least agree that (for example), that the argument from popularity is not valid? It's so frustrating that the same tired arguments crop up that it insults all our intelligence. Just because something is popular, doesn't mean it is right! However, if it is popular among experts, it represents a majority view among experts in the field and means a little more.

For example, most Theists believe that revelation is a valid method of knowing God. Whereas, most people versed in theology understand that many religions have adherents that have revelations and they are not to be trusted.

2. That "good works show the presence of God and Moses was Good". You can't have it both ways. You can't say Moses was good when he slaughtered the Midianites just because your religions says so, and then claim that Andrea Yates was evil when she drowned her three children based on the revelation she had of God. She performed MORE of a sacrifice than Moses because she believed her children were going to be tools of Satan if they lived, whereas Moses believed from the onset that God told him to kill. Andrea Yates knew her soul was in eternal jeapordy but Moses did not. She performed a sacrifice, not Moses. She may have been wrong, but that is revelation for you. (And frankly why it sickens me when people claim it personally).

3. That the Argument from Design is absurd. It goes: "The Universe seems designed, therefore it needed a Designer". What about the fucking Designer? He seems awfully complicated, more complicated than the Universe by far! By so fucking far that it boggles the mind! Who designed the designer? It's so basic we must ALL come to a conclusion that it is NOT a valid line of reasoning.


etc.

There are many arguments that we must come to agreement on NOW. The conversations are getting repetitive. Getting repetitive. And we should at least agree on a few things.

Theists: this means YOU. YOU must come to some understanding that your arguments are not logically valid, since YOU are making the positive claim. Let us, at least, agree on a few basics! I know theists would like this to go on forever, but I want a Caribbean Island - its possible, but unlikely.

Lets at least agree where we disagree and where we will never find purchase.



What arguments are you tired of?

[Nameless]

It's starting to get repetitive.
It's starting to get repetitive.
It's starting to get repetitive.

We have discussed the topics over and over again.

In what way can we at least come to some conclusions and consolidate some of the arguments...

Personally, if actual critical thought is not too difficult, I find that going over the 'same topic' a number of times finds a bit more clarity here and a bit more there. Thought is a 'honing process' in this form. Any concept carven in granite, once and for all, is not a 'truth', but a tombstone; not a living, evolving, emerging understanding of existence, but the (emotional feeling of the) 'security' and 'comfort' of a 'slumbering intellect'.
Perspective is never complete. Never. It can, though, be more 'complete' and less 'complete'.

[daedalus 2.0]

It's starting to get repetitive.
It's starting to get repetitive.
It's starting to get repetitive.

We have discussed the topics over and over again.

In what way can we at least come to some conclusions and consolidate some of the arguments...

Personally, if actual critical thought is not too difficult, I find that going over the 'same topic' a number of times finds a bit more clarity here and a bit more there. Thought is a 'honing process' in this form. Any concept carven in granite, once and for all, is not a 'truth', but a tombstone; not a living, evolving, emerging understanding of existence, but the (emotional feeling of the) 'security' and 'comfort' of a 'slumbering intellect'.
Perspective is never complete. Never. It can, though, be more 'complete' and less 'complete'.

Sure, but retreading the same arguments endlessly hardly lead to the type of edification you are talking about.

Surely, you must agree that moving on to new arguments is becoming more complete and not less?

My point is, once you have agreed that, for example, Ad Hom attacks are not a valid way of arguing the truth of something, you should spend less time debating the validity (or lack of) of Ad Hom's.

Your point is well taken, but I think it better to err on the side of moving on to new arguments, rather than sticking to the same 10 or so that have been well settled.

[daedalus 2.0]

What arguments are you tired of?

I grow weary of listening to non-theists continually focusing on the "easier targets" in Christianity only to conclude they have accomplished something intellectually substantial when they put those easier targets in their place.

It has happened several times that I am engaged in a rousing exhange only to have the non-theist throw down and say something like, "Yes, but your Christian bretheren do not believe this. They believe I'm going to hell!" That's why I've said we need a Fundamentalist Apologetics site for those athiests salavating for a victory without breaking a sweat... :sleep:

There are many Fundi Apologetic sites.

However, I see your point. I get tired of seeing atheists debate idiots, knowing that the atheist has more logic, science, evidence and reason on his or her side than 10,000 years of all of Theism. Continually we atheists get dragged into the same arguments. Sure, it feels good to hone your argument and feel you have made a dent in Theism, or to educate the public in the fallacies and contradictions of Theism, but most of them are child's play. However, those childish arguments from Theists are also what is most popular and what only what most Theists can handle.

For example, the return to "Oh, yeah, you can't prove there ISN'T a God", or "I don't need evidence, I have Faith", or "I had a revelation", or "The Bible says its true", or "Look at the prophecies!", etc...

These are arguments for the uneducated masses (and, ironically, the educated Religionist - since these are arguments that the churches, mosques and temples regularly teach their flock). Hell, even the leading Theologians reject many of the arguments that are routinely found in pamphlets laid about the pews, or disseminated over the internet, or by Missionaries. (Of course, finding who is a "leading" Theologian is like saying "Leading Ghost hunter" - noone has any idea if one is more accurate than the other!

The Fundi's have a point, though, IFF God exists then it is possible that they are right, and the Bible is literal. God COULD make snakes talk, and Satan COULD have created the fossil record to confuse us. However, I think we all agree these are not plausible, likely or rational scenarios.


I might add, that for every Atheist that is giving some Fundi the smack-down, there are 5 average religionists who aren't hearing the debate, afraid to engage it, or, frankly, not interested. Perhaps the atheist "battle" has to be with the extreme fringe, and those who would engage us (no matter what silly argument) in hopes that the average religionist reads a few of the threads, or hears the debates and learns that their church is lying in order to extract money from them - among other things?


I just wish we could agree on some of the basics and send them packing. So, for example, the next time a Muslim Fundi shows up and claims Allah is God and Momad is his prophet because he had a revelation, we can ignore it - just like we should ignore the Xian who claims having a revelation, or the Hindu.


Where are the GOOD Theistic arguments?

[Nameless]

Sure, but retreading the same arguments endlessly hardly lead to the type of edification you are talking about.

I find that I have never had the 'same' critical conversation twice. Every time i discuss the 'same' subject, I hone my thoughts and understanding just a bit (or more), which provides another and different Perspective for the 'future' discussions. Always 'honing', always something new. Especially when people ask me intelligent and thoughtfully considered questions. I find 'critical thought' always to be fruitful.

Surely, you must agree that moving on to new arguments is becoming more complete and not less?

There is no 'ultimate knowledge' on a subject. All moments are discretely different as is the universes. What you understand one day, you might have to consider ignorant the next.
Perhaps you are more looking for 'entertainment' and 'novelty' rather than understanding?

My point is, once you have agreed that, for example, Ad Hom attacks are not a valid way of arguing the truth of something, you should spend less time debating the validity (or lack of) of Ad Hom's.

I don't involve myself in stupid conversations... unless I'm being stupid at the moment... When I am being 'stupid', perhaps it is then that I gravitate to 'stupid' conversations of the nature to which you refer? Same with you? *__- I certainly don't deliberately seek intellectual conversation with the 'cerebrally handicapped'.

Your point is well taken, but I think it better to err on the side of moving on to new arguments, rather than sticking to the same 10 or so that have been well settled.

I find no subject worthy of discussion (obviously a 'personal' call)) to ever be "well settled".

[daedalus 2.0]

Which arguments, specifically arguments for God, that have been well-settled, or not?

[Nameless]

^^^ You talkin' to me?