Theists, is MDB a hostile environment?

[_Some Schmo]

No, it’s a desire to help others.

Well, if you say so. That's my motivation too. Look, we can both assert whatever we want. Isn't this fun?

I know it like the back of my hand; I was saying the same tropes you drag out when I was 16.

Oh, my mistake. You don't sound arrogant at all.

How would you feel if I told you that it's normal to feel this way at your age (you know, like a self assured dumb ass), but maybe one day, you'll grow up? I bet that would come off as super cool, huh?

You only find it arrogant because I’m calling you on this tired old routine; for example…

This Santa Claus crap you're spewing in this thread is a perfect example. It's not about comparing what's attributed to god with what's attributed to Santa. It's about the relative merits of belief in either (which are roughly the same).

What you said here can be boiled down to this:

It’s not about comparing the attributes of X and Y, it’s about examining the merits for believing X or Y and the merits for both are the same.

The problem here is that the attributes of X and Y are what is going to determine the merits of belief. People build entire worldviews by starting with God; no one does that with Santa. Christians affirm God is the greatest possible being, no child thinks Santa is the greatest possible being. Since the attributes are so wildly different, the methods for assessing the beliefs in God and Santa are completely different. You are glossing over all of this, as if this is some kind of obvious fact, but it isn’t.

Yes, this demonstrates a superb understanding of the argument.

Just because you happen to find the attributes theists endow god with more compelling doesn't make them so. Just because you're wooed by how important they are to theists doesn't make them impressive... well, except to you and those who agree. So what? Who are you to say that my concept of Santa is inferior to yours of the greatest possible being?

The analogy between God and Santa is just plain stupid, and was invented by some smart ass to make a rhetorical point.

It's not nearly as stupid as arguing that we should respect sophisticated arguments of god without actually providing what those awesome arguments are.

You're such an anti-atheist you actually think "dawkfags" is somehow funny (or at least, appropriate).

It’s hilarious, you should see those mouth breathers fawning over little Mason Crumpacker, giving her little 9 year old “Free Thinking” testimony. They’ve created the religion they’ve always wanted.

So how should I regard your bias against atheists whose style you don't agree with and whose arguments you don't seem to actually understand?

I’ve read all the Gnu-Atheist books, I understand the arguments inside and out, and can dismantle them or make them better. They suck, no secret in the Philosophy world, but they get gobbled up by all the fan boys and girls.

My bias is against bad arguments, not only because they fail, but they are not even interesting. Ex-Mormon “Skeptics” “Free Thinkers” “Apatheists” or whatever label they give themselves, make a cottage industry out of promulgating this crap.

The end result is a description of God no right minded Christian would agree to, and then knock it down with crude evidentialism and naïve empiricism. Refuting what no one believes doesn’t do anything, except reaffirm to yourself that everyone who disagrees with you deeply and passionately believes in nonsense.

And yet, you've yet to actually demonstrate any of these particular assertions. You're more theist than you're letting on.

OK, then... theofag it is. Or maybe philosofag would be better? Maybe. I can't stop laughing here. Hilarious, I tells ya! Hilarious! It's funny cause it's true! Ohhh... the humor of it all.

[_MCB]

Since we have a common ground- that of opposing the abuse of religion-- any militant atheism I see is just static.

[_Some Schmo]

Since we have a common ground- that of opposing the abuse of religion-- any militant atheism I see is just static.

How do you see militant theism?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

What's a militant Atheist?

[_Some Schmo]

I think the real problem here is that people just don't understand my personal concept of atheism, despite the fact that I've expressed it over and over. If only they'd address what I mean rather than what I say, we could have a fulfilling conversation about it. Oh, how I yearn for the deeper understanding we could all get from it. As it stands now, I'll just shout everyone down with "strawman! strawman!" and avoid the counter arguments completely because they don't address my unspoken nuances.

[_Buffalo]

Really? Is it that stupid? I remember as a believing teen noticing the similarity between the two concepts (and then hastily trying to dismiss it).

Yes, it is that stupid. I’m sure the analogy scared you as a teen, because teenagers rarely have a good understanding of things. I was totally into Ayn Rand when I was a teen, and thought she was a revolutionary genius.

Then I grew up.

While I don't the comparison is worthy of anyone's dissertation (and it's become a trite comparison by now), your dogmatic dismissal isn't any more logical.

Dogmatic isn’t a good description if I can show why it fails, which I do. You can’t make any meaningful comparison between God and Santa, without turning Santa into something no child believes in, or turning God into something no one really believes.

The two are different on a fundamental and ontological level. The tools you use to evaluate Santa cannot be used to evaluate God and vice versa. It’s not apples and oranges, it’s apples and sparkplugs.

Ironically, your dismissal of the comparison relied on a crude misrepresentation of Santa.

[_MrStakhanovite]

How would you feel if I told you that it's normal to feel this way at your age (you know, like a self assured dumb ass), but maybe one day, you'll grow up? I bet that would come off as super cool, huh?

I’d shrug it off. I already know how Christians on this board appreciate my effort to understand their faith.

Yes, this demonstrates a superb understanding of the argument.

That is exactly how you wrote it.

Just because you happen to find the attributes theists endow god with more compelling doesn't make them so.

This is where the naïve empiricism gets set off and you think the comparison had some kind of intended aesthetic effect, that I’m somehow impressed with how Christians have been describing their God since Augustine. Sadly, that is not the case.

Saganisms and fumbling Thunderf00t videos have dimmed your scientific thinking Schmo, let’s see how far this goes…

Just because you're wooed by how important they are to theists doesn't make them impressive... well, except to you and those who agree. So what? Who are you to say that my concept of Santa is inferior to yours of the greatest possible being?

So what? Why, when it comes to evidence Schmo, we have to know the attributes of the being we seek, don’t we? I don’t look for Bigfoot in the ocean, and you don’t look for God at the North pole.

The comparison isn’t about what is better; it’s about trying to figure out how we go about looking for such a thing. What were the neurons and synapses doing in your head when you read this:

Since the attributes are so wildly different, the methods for assessing the beliefs in God and Santa are completely different. You are glossing over all of this, as if this is some kind of obvious fact, but it isn’t.

Still glossing Schmo. Where is that finely honed scientific mindset that allowed you to discard all that nonsense religion? Can’t confirm or deny anything empirical if you don’t carefully lay out what you are looking for in the first place.

It's not nearly as stupid as arguing that we should respect sophisticated arguments of god without actually providing what those awesome arguments are.

You’re wish is my command! Here are three simple and logically valid arguments for the God I’ve been describing thus far, if you can show me them to be mere nonsense, I’d appreciate it. These belong to Alexander Pruss, he has two PhDs (Philosophy and Mathematics) and is a damn good Philosopher. I can already guess how you will handle this…

You don’t understand the arguments, so you’ll accuse them of wordplay and mental masturbation. You’ll make a demand for “real” evidence and not these games.

Argument 1:
1. Possibly, the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) is true.
2. Necessarily, if the PSR is true, then there is a causally efficacious necessary being.
3. Therefore, possibly, there is a necessary causally efficacious being.
4. Therefore, actually, there is a necessary possibly causally efficacious being.

Argument 2:
Let @ be the actual world. Say that a being is omnipotent* provided it is omnipotent at at least some explanatory point in the history of the world (so omnipotence* is prima facie compatible with giving up omnipotence).
1. Possibly, there is an omnipotent being.
2. Necessarily, if x is omnipotent, then x exists at @.
3. Necessarily, any omnipotent being is essentially omnipotent*.
4. Therefore, there is an essentially omnipotent* being.

Premises (2) and (3) need support. First, necessarily, a being is only omnipotent if it could create me (directly or mediately). But by essentiality of origins I could be created by a being only if I am created by the being. Therefore, if there is a being that could create me, that being creates me at @, and hence exists at @. Thus, (2). Also, plausibly, an omnipotent being could be the First Cause in any possible world. Hence, an omnipotent being must be a necessary being, and hence exist at @. Thus, (2).

What about (3)? Well, an omnipotent being could exercise its omnipotence to put itself in any state possible to it. Suppose it's possible for an omnipotent being to fail to be omnipotent*. Then the omnipotent being could make itself be non-omnipotent* by exercising its omnipotence. But then the being would be omnipotent at some explanatory point in that world where it makes itself non-omnipotent*, and hence it would be omnipotent* there. So absurdity arises. So it's not possible for an omnipotent being to fail to be omnipotent*.

Argument 3:
Say that x knows* p iff x knows p or knows some proposition of which p is a conjunct.
1. Possibly, there is a being x such that for any proposition p that could be true, x could know p.
2. Therefore let w be a world and x a being such that x exists at w and for any proposition p, if p could be true, x could know p.
3. Therefore, if w* is any possible world and p be any proposition true at w*, then x could know that w* is actual and p.
4. x could know that w* is actual and p only at w*.
5. Therefore, if w* is a possible world and p is true at w*, then x exists at w* and knows* that p at w*.
6. Therefore, there is a being that exists at every world and knows* every truth at every world.

You're more theist than you're letting on.

There it is! I’m not a real Atheist because I think theistic arguments deserve respect and a close hearing! Just as Pahoran accuses LDST of not being a real Saint, Schmo joins Marg and a host of Dawkfags who view me with suspicion because I’m critical of fellow atheists.
Always happens.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Ironically, your dismissal of the comparison relied on a crude misrepresentation of Santa.

Buffalo leaned back from his keyboard, lacing his sausage fingers behind his head; he felt satisfied that his answer was clever enough to pass muster. He knew a reply would soon be coming, so he yelled up the stairs, “MORE HOT POCKETS MA! I got a live one here…”

Look at what I wrote rube:

You can’t make any meaningful comparison between God and Santa, without turning Santa into something no child believes in, or turning God into something no one really believes. .

There isn’t any irony, turn Santa into the greatest possible being and the entire sense and reference of the being you seek to describe is changed.

Come’on Free Thinker! you need to know this stuff if you want to show that Christianity is some kind of silly nonsense.

[_Buffalo]

Ironically, your dismissal of the comparison relied on a crude misrepresentation of Santa.

Buffalo leaned back from his keyboard, lacing his sausage fingers behind his head; he felt satisfied that his answer was clever enough to pass muster. He knew a reply would soon be coming, so he yelled up the stairs, “MORE HOT POCKETS MA! I got a live one here…”

Look at what I wrote rube:

You can’t make any meaningful comparison between God and Santa, without turning Santa into something no child believes in, or turning God into something no one really believes. .

There isn’t any irony, turn Santa into the greatest possible being and the entire sense and reference of the being you seek to describe is changed.

Come’on Free Thinker! you need to know this stuff if you want to show that Christianity is some kind of silly nonsense.

That's cute and everything, but your characterization of Santa as a diabetic does violence to the sacred imagery of the Father Christmas mythos. :(

And of course, we all know that when any comparison is made between two ideas, those ideas must be identical in every way, otherwise the comparison is moot. Because, of course, the whole point of comparing things is to look not for key similarities, but exact similitude. Right?

[_MrStakhanovite]

That's cute and everything, but your characterization of Santa as a diabetic does violence to the sacred imagery of the Father Christmas mythos. :(

There is no sacred imagery, a man as fat as coca cola depicts him if gonna be shackeled with a Wilford Brimley like diabeetus

And of course, we all know that when any comparison is made between two ideas, those ideas must be identical in every way, otherwise the comparison is moot. Because, of course, the whole point of comparing things is to look not for key similarities, but exact similitude. Right?

List the key similarities.