Of course. Religious people will often talk about their beliefs with others (ingroup or outgroup), but not actually discuss them. That's my point. They preach, they teach, but they do not engage in discussion, in dialogue between presumed equals. It's beneath their dignity to discuss their religious beliefs on any other terms but their own.What you need to "get" is that believers don't see you (or any critical person, whether theist or atheist) as someone with whom to discuss their beliefs.
— baker
Don't know about tim wood specifically, but otherwise I beg to differ.
There are preachers, proselytizers, priests, imams, pujas (and indoctrinators) just about everywhere doing their thing. Often enough they refuse to carry their onus probandi, heck, at times they insist what your epistemic standards have to be. Then they have their faiths interfere in other people's lives, politics, etc. — jorndoe
Surely he wasn't Catholic (because a Catholic isn't supposed to have certainty about who in particular will go to hell or not; although a Catholic still looks forward to God's justice being done, and as such, rejoices at the thought of people burning in hell for all eternity).He went on to ask me if I took comfort from the fact that Hitler was burning in Hell for all eternity. — Kenosha Kid
This is what makes you an atheist: not taking pleasure in God's justice.He almost fell off his box when I said no. I'm not sure which interpretation of 'no' stunned him, but I think it was the idea that I might derive no pleasure from someone being tortured for eternity for their crimes.
Surely he wasn't Catholic (because a Catholic isn't supposed to have certainty about who in particular will go to hell or not; although a Catholic still looks forward to God's justice being done, and as such, rejoices at the thought of people burning in hell for all eternity). — baker
This is what makes you an atheist: not taking pleasure in God's justice. — baker
I more or less gave up trying to make sense if it. — Kenosha Kid
What do you know of God's justice?
— Fooloso4
Whatever can be done by syllogism. — baker
How do you account for the injustice in the world? It is not enough to say that injustice is the work of man, for then God's justice seems indifferent to man's.
God's justice is above man's justice. — baker
The second premise is false, so the conclusion doesn't follow.You mean like this?
A just God would not allow injustice in the world
There is injustice in the world
Therefore God is not just — Fooloso4
On the basis that God is typically defined as just.That does not obviate the claim that God is indifferent to man's injustice. If you mean that we cannot understand God's justice then on what basis do you claim that God is just?
A mistake people often make when trying to talk to religious people is assuming that what they are having or about to have is an actual conversation, a discussion, a dialogue. It's not. — baker
The second premise is false, so the conclusion doesn't follow. — baker
On the basis that God is typically defined as just. — baker
Then the Christian claim that another diety eliminates the need to make sacrifices. :chin: — Athena
A longitudinal study is relevant because it studies the development of a particular population over a long period of time. A study of development gives more insight than just a static cut through a population at a specific time.Keep in mind that it's in 'merica, which is far more religious than other wealthy countries. — Banno
Sure. What I'm interested in is what drives people to education and the pursuit of material wellbeing to begin with. I think religion plays an important role in this. Religion is what gives many people ambition for material pursuits. But once a measure of material wellbeing is achieved, religion tends to take a backseat. A longitudinal study would show this.The results suport the contention that education results in the rejection of religious belief and practice. — Banno
Neat. I don't understand how someone cannot see these obvious inconsistencies. Lack of critical ability, lack of insight or simple self-deception? — Banno
No, you're just measuring everything by your own human standards (instead of by God's) -- that's why you see injustice in the world.The second premise is false, so the conclusion doesn't follow.
— baker
There is a whole lot of evidence to the contrary. — Fooloso4
Of course not. But if you're going to talk about God, you need to stick to the definitions actually provided by actual monotheistic religions, otherwise you're just making shit up.Well, if you want to take that as a matter of faith, then okay, but you can't at the same time make an appeal to logic. It does not follow logically from a definition that something is as defined.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.