Faithful TBM to doubter in 6 hours on ex-Mormon Reddit

[Meadowchik]

Because you made an unnecessarily overarching and insupportable statement about the behavior of a large group of diverse people, on the basis of a single attribute they have in common, which is not necessarily related to the attribute you assumed for all.

Marcus, how do you know it's insupportable?

You are welcome to explain why you engaged in such stereotyping in response to IHAQ's comment:

Thank you. The simple fact is that humanity needs God. If, as atheists assert, there is no deity in control of this universe, then it becomes those atheists' conscientious obligation to produce one. If atheists have thought things through and are yet not pessimists, then that means they must have found a way to produce such a deity, which would surprise me very much. So if you can explain to me how they have discovered how to produce God, I will admit that I am wrong and that my statement is insupportable.

Humanity has relied upon God doesn't mean we'll always need God. Sufficient would be the construction of a replacement, not necessarily a deity. I'm satisfied with mine.

[KevinSim]

If you can't see why it is nonsensical to suggest in the middle of a discussion about whether the universe is deterministic or not that believing in a nondeterministic universe entails accepting the idea that a large object like a planet might simply appear from nowhere, then I'm afraid we are on such different wavelengths that it is probably not worthwhile for us to continue trying to have a serious discussion on these matters.

Chap, that's a copout. If you don't know what determinism and non-determinism mean, then just admit it.

I think I refuted your argument on that point effectively enough, but I prefer not continue trying to have a rational discussion with someone who makes such strange suggestions about his opponents' supposed beliefs.

I was simply trying to understand what you meant by suggesting the universe might be non-deterministic. Why is it that someone making a strange suggestion about what something means, means that someone doesn't deserve an explanation of what that something means, especially when the person making the judgment has not established that s/he even knows what the something means?

[malkie]

First, let's start with the complete quote:


What I was noting, in reply to doubtingthomas, was that (assuming for the sake of argument that your God exists) there is a possibility that you, KevinSim, do not have an infallible means of knowing when you have received a communication from that God.

Ah, so it was all hypothetical. That first statement made it sound hypothetical, but the second statement made it sound like you were asserting that something very specific had actually happened.

And that is exactly why I objected to your use of an incomplete quote - omitting the first statement totally altered the meaning.

So when you say:

that may only mean that you failed to recognise a communication/correction, and so are unaware that God did actually correct your assumption.

Malkie, that sounds like a very inefficient God. I have faith in a God that is able to get His message through to people who want to hear it.

Again you are assuming something that is not in evidence. One of the last ways that I would describe the god you subscribe to is 'efficient and a good communicator'. Even assuming for the sake of argument that this god exists, there is ample evidence of inefficiency and poor communications to make your faith suspect.

The point of such an analysis is simple: you go back, layer by layer, to your base assumption(s), and examine their foundations at each stage to assure yourself that there is no reasonable alternative.

I have no objection to that. I just didn't want to get mired down in the "LDS truth claims" that Doc was talking about, that I may or may not have actually believed in.

Note that I'm not saying that I can prove that a god created the universe, and all that is in at, only that I find that goddidit adds no value at any point.

Is that a typo?

Can you be specific?

If you are asking if "goddidit" is a typo, I suggest you google it.

If you are suggesting that I meant "I'm not saying that I can prove that a god created did not create the universe.", I think that that is likely. However, you are responding to comments that I made 10 days ago, and, old guy that I am, I cannot be sure what was in my mind at that time, or which of your statements I was responding to.

[KevinSim]

Ah, so it was all hypothetical. That first statement made it sound hypothetical, but the second statement made it sound like you were asserting that something very specific had actually happened.

And that is exactly why I objected to your use of an incomplete quote - omitting the first statement totally altered the meaning.

I would say that including the second statement totally altered the meaning! In retrospect I should have included both statements and declared that I was getting mixed messages. The first statement made it sound like the question was hypothetical while the second statement sounded like you were asserting something very specific.

Again you are assuming something that is not in evidence. One of the last ways that I would describe the god you subscribe to is 'efficient and a good communicator'.

Which deity is that, Malkie?

If you are suggesting that I meant "I'm not saying that I can prove that a god created did not create the universe.", I think that that is likely.

Yeah, that's it.

However, you are responding to comments that I made 10 days ago, and, old guy that I am, I cannot be sure what was in my mind at that time, or which of your statements I was responding to.

Sorry about that. My time to check in to this forum is pretty limited, so sometimes I find myself responding to posts made a significant time ago.

[KevinSim]

IHAQ, my response shows my insecurity? How does it do that?

Because you want to paint all atheists as non-conscientious.

That's not what I said.

If you can’t see the arrogance in that, and how it highlights your own insecurity then I can’t help you.

Is it possible that I see no arrogance because there isn't any there? Humans need God. If you disagree then let me know, and I'll explain why I think so. If atheists think things through, they will realize that in the absence of God they have an obligation to produce one. If they're conscientious then they will try. Maybe I'm wrong; maybe they will succeed; but I think it's more likely they'll give up on the whole endeavor and turn to pessimism. What else can they do?

[Marcus]

...Humans need God. If you disagree then let me know, and I'll explain why I think so. If atheists think things through, they will realize that in the absence of God they have an obligation to produce one.

If they're conscientious then they will try. Maybe I'm wrong; maybe they will succeed; but I think it's more likely they'll give up on the whole endeavor and turn to pessimism. What else can they do?

What is going on?

[The simple fact is that humanity needs God. If, as atheists assert, there is no deity in control of this universe, then it becomes those atheists' conscientious obligation to produce one.

If atheists have thought things through and are yet not pessimists, then that means they must have found a way to produce such a deity, which would surprise me very much. So if you can explain to me how they have discovered how to produce God, I will admit that I am wrong and that my statement is insupportable.

Why are you repeating yourself? Is this a proselytizing assignment for you?

Whats the point of giving an almost identical response to two entirely different comments?

[Meadowchik]

Because you want to paint all atheists as non-conscientious.

That's not what I said.

If you can’t see the arrogance in that, and how it highlights your own insecurity then I can’t help you.

Is it possible that I see no arrogance because there isn't any there? Humans need God. If you disagree then let me know, and I'll explain why I think so. If atheists think things through, they will realize that in the absence of God they have an obligation to produce one. If they're conscientious then they will try. Maybe I'm wrong; maybe they will succeed; but I think it's more likely they'll give up on the whole endeavor and turn to pessimism. What else can they do?

I disagree. As an exmormon atheist who thinks things through I don't arrive at your conclusion.

[Chap]

If you can't see why it is nonsensical to suggest in the middle of a discussion about whether the universe is deterministic or not that believing in a nondeterministic universe entails accepting the idea that a large object like a planet might simply appear from nowhere, then I'm afraid we are on such different wavelengths that it is probably not worthwhile for us to continue trying to have a serious discussion on these matters.

Chap, that's a copout. If you don't know what determinism and non-determinism mean, then just admit it.

I am perfectly aware of the distinction, like anybody who has actually studied physics to a fairly advanced level, I am well aware of the fact that at some scales indeterminacy is inherent in every process: you can say, for instance "there is an X% probability that this atomic nucleus will decay in the next 10 seconds", but it is impossible to say when the decay will occur. However, once we get to the scale of the objects normally perceptible to human beings, that kind of thing is no longer an issue; the chances of planets suddenly appearing or disappearing may be treated as utterly negligible. But my original reply to you was not intended to argue that the universe was or was not indeterministic - see below.

In any case, I was not advocating a position that the universe was deterministic, or that it was not deterministic. My intervention in this discussion was solely by way of a criticism of your argument that a nondeterministic universe must always have contained a being with free will, whom you identify with the deity of your religion.I think I refuted your argument on that point effectively enough, but I prefer not continue trying to have a rational discussion with someone who makes such strange suggestions about his opponents' supposed beliefs.

I was simply trying to understand what you meant by suggesting the universe might be non-deterministic. Why is it that someone making a strange suggestion about what something means, means that someone doesn't deserve an explanation of what that something means, especially when the person making the judgment has not established that s/he even knows what the something means?

You deliberately omitted the part of my quote in bold above, which I have restored. As I made plain, I was not interested in arguing with you about whether the universe was deterministic or indeterministic (a question whose implications I think I understand better than you do), but in dealing with your strange suggestion that as I said "a nondeterministic universe must always have contained a being with free will, whom you identify with the deity of your religion".

I am sorry to have to say that your omission of a significant part of my post suggests to me that you may not be entirely honest as a poster. Perhaps it is better just to say that you may be a little confused.

[IHAQ]

If atheists think things through, they will realize that in the absence of God they have an obligation to produce one. If they're conscientious then they will try. Maybe I'm wrong; maybe they will succeed; but I think it's more likely they'll give up on the whole endeavor and turn to pessimism. What else can they do?

This is a blatantly stupid position to hold.

On the basis that you’re genuinely stupid (as opposed to simply dishonestly pretending to be) let me replay your position back to you in more simple terms…

I believe pigs can fly, you do not. If you think things through you will realise that in the absence of flying pigs you have an obligation to produce a flying pig. If you’re conscientious you will try. Maybe I’m wrong about you, maybe you will produce a flying pig, but I think it’s more likely you won’t bother and will return to being pessimistic about pigs flying. However, failing to produce a flying pig validates my position that pigs can fly.

You simply cannot be asking people to invalidate your belief by requiring them to validate your belief. That’s a ‘MG2.0’ trick. The onus is on you to produce your God, as you’re the believer. If you’re conscientious you will produce your God. If you’re conscientious then you will try…

As an aside, Catch 22…great book.

[Meadowchik]

If atheists think things through, they will realize that in the absence of God they have an obligation to produce one. If they're conscientious then they will try. Maybe I'm wrong; maybe they will succeed; but I think it's more likely they'll give up on the whole endeavor and turn to pessimism. What else can they do?

This is a blatantly stupid position to hold.

On the basis that you’re genuinely stupid (as opposed to simply dishonestly pretending to be) let me replay your position back to you in more simple terms…

I believe pigs can fly, you do not. If you think things through you will realise that in the absence of flying pigs you have an obligation to produce a flying pig. If you’re conscientious you will try. Maybe I’m wrong about you, maybe you will produce a flying pig, but I think it’s more likely you won’t bother and will return to being pessimistic about pigs flying. However, failing to produce a flying pig validates my position that pigs can fly.

You simply cannot be asking people to invalidate your belief by requiring them to validate your belief. That’s a ‘MG2.0’ trick. The onus is on you to produce your God, as you’re the believer. If you’re conscientious you will produce your God. If you’re conscientious then you will try…

As an aside, Catch 22…great book.

The analogy isn't quite the same. If we historically relied on the belief that pigs fly, then yes. But humans use the God belief whether God is real or not.

The question of whether they need God is legitimate. The problem of how humans replace the God-functions is also legitimate. In fact, I don't think humanity as a whole will transition away from theism without a safe alternative.

Fortunately, though, I do think that being able to function as a whole in a pluralistic society does help humanity build the tools needed to function without theism. Maybe not all, but alot of them.