Quote from: Emme on December 14, 2008, 06:47:44 PM

Quote from: Kaitlyn on December 14, 2008, 06:40:31 PM
The problem with taking the academic view of a religion is that it doesn't jive with how 99.9% of people actually treat the topic.  How many believers are going to know what an ecumenical council is?  How many can name even a single major heresy?  Documentary Hypothesis... what's that?

The fact is that the important documents pertaining to modern-day Christianity are a bunch of fragmentary, dubious translations, chosen for political motives, and gathered together in a big book labeled "King James Version" or "New Revised Standard Version".

I'm sitting here, with my incredulity on the tip of my tongue, I just can't ifnd the words to say what's in my head and make my intent understood.

We can't not view things from an academic standpoint because people can't be bothered to truly learn about their belief system regardless of whether it's from a sheep mentality, laziness, or some other reason.  And on a deeper level, if people aren't taking the time to understand both the history and the theology of their belief system, then why are they so bent on creating laws around it the same?

I think you missed my point... I'm not saying that it's wrong to look at it from that standpoint, but that there are already millions of believers who outright reject that kind of viewpoint, and they're the ones that we all seem to have problems with.  How can you debate rationally with someone who thinks the Books of Moses were literally written by Moses, word for word?  In English?

Quote from: Aelita_Lynn on December 14, 2008, 06:54:22 PM

Quote from: Vexing on December 14, 2008, 06:44:17 PM

Quote from: Aelita_Lynn on December 14, 2008, 06:36:51 PM
The real problem is that some of his attributes have to suspend the laws of physics for them to happen.

You mean like conjuring a planet out of nothing?
Or perhaps making a living creature out of dust?
Flaming swords, burning bushes that talk, serpents that speak human language, rivers of blood, the sun standing still, setting a soaking wet altar alight with prayer, chariots of fire coming down from the sky, parting the sea?
A fat guy that can put presents under every household Xmas tree in one night sounds practically plausible by comparison!

Where did I say that he did those things?

Is God omnipotent or not?

There is no such thing as Omnipotence. It's an artificial concept. If God exists, how powerful is he? I don't know. How do you gauge power. Like how many joules could he produce? Beats me.

Quote from: Aelita_Lynn on December 14, 2008, 07:00:39 PM
There is no such thing as Omnipotence. It's an artificial concept.

Do you have any tangible evidence to back this up?
Also, could God do Santa's job if he chose to?

Quote from: Aelita_Lynn on December 14, 2008, 07:00:39 PM
There is no such thing as Omnipotence. It's an artificial concept. If God exists, how powerful is he? I don't know. How do you gauge power. Like how many joules could he produce? Beats me.

OK, then you've got a very different idea of God from what I'm used to hearing.  You mentioned before that your God is naturalistic?

Quote from: Vexing on December 14, 2008, 06:55:38 PM
Eureka! Now you understand why atheists find the concept of God to be so ludicrous!

Really now? Nothings changed... I haven't learned anything I didn't already know. Pretty much all I said was that Atheists were being irrational. Why would you say Eureka for me calling Atheists hypocrites?

QuoteOK, then you've got a very different idea of God from what I'm used to hearing.  You mentioned before that your God is naturalistic?

Yeah. What about it? I don't understand the question. What exactly do you want to know?

Quote from: Aelita_Lynn on December 14, 2008, 07:06:11 PM

Quote from: Vexing on December 14, 2008, 06:55:38 PM
Eureka! Now you understand why atheists find the concept of God to be so ludicrous!

Really now? Nothings changed... I haven't learned anything I didn't already know. Pretty much all I said was that Atheists were being irrational. Why would you say Eureka for calling Atheists hypocrites?

I pointed out that you think the IPU is ridiculous.
Atheists feel the same about God.
There is just as much evidence for the IPU as there is for God, so logically, you think God is ridiculous. 

Quote from: Aelita_Lynn on December 14, 2008, 07:06:11 PM

Quote from: Vexing on December 14, 2008, 06:55:38 PM
Eureka! Now you understand why atheists find the concept of God to be so ludicrous!

Really now? Nothings changed... I haven't learned anything I didn't already know. Pretty much all I said was that Atheists were being irrational. Why would you say Eureka for me calling Atheists hypocrites?

QuoteOK, then you've got a very different idea of God from what I'm used to hearing.  You mentioned before that your God is naturalistic?

Yeah. What about it? I don't understand the question.

It's just that if your idea of God is something completely natural, existing within and bound by the rules of the universe, then you're in the same boat as most atheists - i.e. you don't accept supernatural explanations.  That being the case, even though I don't believe in your God, you're right in saying that I can't deny his existence without being illogical.

I still don't know what you mean by God, though... or why you'd use the word "God" when that's almost always associated with a supernatural being.

I pointed out that you think the IPU is ridiculous.
Atheists feel the same about God.
There is just as much evidence for the IPU as there is for God, so logically, you think God is ridiculous. 
[/quote]

However the problem the IPU is manufactured so that it's traits have been chosen specifically to be ridiculous to people of our culture. We have been preconditioned to think that unicorns are ridiculous, same with pink animals. The invisibility is the exception because we have not discovered any invisible life. (Note that invisibility was  the one trait that I felt needed explanation before the concept really can be taken seriously). After all, what's so implausible about an equine animal with one horn. And as far as I know, there is no conceivable reason why it couldn't be pink, especially if it is capable of invisibility. The pink could just be a natural skin color, or maybe it has pink fur due to some kind of mutation. It's pink fur might even help it to attract mates. The only thing difficult to believe about the IPU is the invisibility because it is not posited as to how it could be done. I haven't been given any other details so that's about as far as my analysis can go. I would conclude that such a creature is not ridiculous with that one caveat.

It may not be ridiculous, but I don't know of any evidence to support the statement "IPU's exist".  It's perfectly logical to say, "I do not believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns."

Now if we were to throw in some other qualities, like the old (but undefinable or contradictory) trilogy of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence, wouldn't you feel justified in saying, "IPUs do not exist?"

EDIT:  I'd really like to have a stuffed pink unicorn.  Ever since Vexing mentioned it, I've been fighting this stupid girly-girl urge to go buy one and squeeze the heck out of it. 

I guess that Supernatural is kind of a meaningless term anyways. If it isn't artificial and it isn't natural doesn't that mean it's non-existent? If there is a God, I think that it is a sentience that has existed since the... well I don't think you can say that the universe ever really began but that is kind of a complicated philosophical point... but since the beginning of the universe. I am not sure if God would be of the universe or being part of the universe itself. I think that he\she\it set the universe into motion. God would be an expression of as the Zoroastrians say, "the creative principle", while "the devil" is the "destructive principle". As spirits go and such (which I do believe in for reasons I'm not going to go into) they might be a form of electromagnetic life - which IS theoretically possible. If I am wrong about all this, and yet there still is a God, the I would guess he is some kind of Boltzman Brain.

Also... It is perfectly logical to say you don't believe in something. It is a whole other matter entirely to deny it's existence outright. That is what bothers me. There are many Atheists that take this and make it into a declaration. A declaration of faith?

Oh also... If they told me that the IPU was those things... the trilogy of utterly meaningless terns. Then I would think that they were becoming a bit obsessed and had begun to ascribe superlative terms to it. I would think that they should calm down and try and be a little more level headed. I would also explain that those terms made no sense and hopefully help the person better define the thing they were trying to describe. If they said it's really powerful and knows everything blah blah blah, then I would be very skeptical and believe they were just passing on exaggerations. Another thing I would take note of is if anyone else claimed knowledge of the IPU and try and figure out where the idea came from. If only one person has ever known anything about it then I would say "I doesn't exist" even though it isn't logical, but nothing in life is absolute is it?

All sound like a heartfelt conversation about the origins of Superman to me.

Quote from: Aelita_Lynn on December 14, 2008, 07:41:38 PM
Also... It is perfectly logical to say you don't believe in something. It is a whole other matter entirely to deny it's existence outright. That is what bothers me. There are many Atheists that take this and make it into a declaration. A declaration of faith?

But it is logical to deny the existence of things that are self-contradictory and incoherent - since they logically can't exist.  Square circles don't exist, and neither does bright darkness.  Benevolent wickedness is another.  Or the triple threat of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence.  Assuming you can even define them clearly, it's going to be "Pick any two", as the saying goes.  I feel perfectly justified in denying the existence of any being that is claimed to have these characteristics.

Quote from: tekla on December 14, 2008, 07:57:38 PM
All sound like a heartfelt conversation about the origins of Superman to me.

Which Superman, and pre or post-crisis? (and which crisis?).

Quote from: Aelita_Lynn on December 14, 2008, 07:24:13 PM

However the problem the IPU is manufactured

So is God.
There is no difference at all.

You can substitute the IPU with Vampire Penguins, Smurfs, Gorgons, Giants, Fenris, Odin, Dread Wotan, Krishna, Vishnu, The Dagda, Balor, The Fomori, Eshu, etc, etc, etc.
They all have the same amount of evidence for their existence as God.
i.e. no evidence.
Why then don't you believe in ALL things that have no credible evidence if you believe in one?

Perhaps it is inaccurate to say that I believe. In fact you could say that I don't believe in anything, even the reality of my experience typing this post. I cannot prove that it is real. It would be more accurate to say that it is a guess. Nothing is certain, ever. I may make different guesses than you do, but you can't tell me that my guess is wrong and I can't tell you that your guess is wrong. The sad truth is that no matter what, we will never know anything about anything. I hope I didn't lose you there.

What a cop-op.
When in doubt, call on subjective reality.
*golf clap*

You guys should probably quit arguing now. You're not really getting anywhere.

Faith is the important missing componant here. I don't think faith is logical yet it seems to be an important part of the lives of many of us. Clearly on the face of it a 'god' is about as logical as the IPU. But nobody has faith in the IPU.  For those that believe in god I don't think you should stick to logic because clearly it is a matter of faith.

That is not a cop-out!!!  I am really insulted by that!


See rule #15 - attack the position, not the person. - Emme

God is an onion. Whether you tear up or not depends upon how you handle it.