Why Many Americans Still Believe The Official Version Of 9/11

Submitted by: monkwarrior 1 month ago in Science


The Asch Experiment is one of the oldest and most popular areas of psychological research.  This video helps to explain why people believe the most outrageous lies, and go along with them; even going along with the group at the expense of what they believe. There's a more in-depth video on the page above.
There are 212 comments:
Male 5,364
The interesting thing about this research is that the 25% who remain correct when the potential 75% is wrong.  I have no doubt that the 75% would look down on the others to protect the lie, as historically people holding to a lie have had a tendency to do that.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
Yes, Monk, it is really sad how you believe and go with the most outrageous lies. I use my own experiences and education to make my own conclusions, while you go with what a bunch of nuts tell you. Who's the crazy one here?
1
Reply
Male 5,364
whosaidwhat obviously you are, since you are too afraid of going against the crowd, 'normalacy', and what your tv tells you.
-1
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior Again, I am going on EDUCATION, PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, and COMMON SENSE, NOT what the tv tells me, or even what the crowd tells me. Whats your excuse? I've proven my theories to you, in my own words, while you are either unwilling, or unable to reciprocate.
1
Reply
Male 3,410
whosaidwhat Four Words

Don't
Feed
The
Troll
1
Reply
Male 5,364
kalron27 projecting again?
-1
Reply
Male 1,798
kalron27 Yeah, I know I shouldn't.
1
Reply
Male 5,364
whosaidwhat Good one, if you really had common sense, you would understand tat the facts point to explosives being used to bring down those buildings on 9/11.  But alas, it looks like you've suffered from group dynamics.
-1
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior What explosives were used?
1
Reply
Male 5,364
whosaidwhat that's what a re-investigation could reveal.
0
Reply
Male 3,410
whosaidwhat None ;)  They try to use the seismology graphs that show a "spike" before the collapse.  However this "spike" is actually the point where the building hits the ground.  Lead investigators put the collapse at about 10 sec BEFORE the "spike" on the seismograph, they base that time on the visual collapse from the top of the building, while the seismic data shows the end result 10 sec later as the building's force impacts the Earth. 


If there was an explosion that caused the collapse, we would see TWO spikes.  One for the explosion, one at the point the building hits the ground.  That just didn't happen.
1
Reply
Male 5,364
kalron27 deluding yourself again by ignoring the source of the explosions heard by many first responders (people who know what explosions sound like)?  Ignoring the explosions that NIST claimed they didn't test for, despite the overwhelming reports of them indicating they should have?  Also ignoring the explosions that any sensible person saw when they fell as debris ejected laterally in stages, not to mention the explosive evidence found at the crime scene of 9/11?  Seems so.
-1
Reply
Male 5,364
whosaidwhat That's what a re-investigation might find: What explosives were used.  The source of the explosions heard by many first responders.  The explosions that NIST claimed they didn't test for, despite the overwhelming reports of them indicating they should have.  The explosions that any sensible person saw when they fell as debris ejected laterally in stages. The explosive evidence found at the crime scene of 9/11. Evidence of explosives which have lead scientists around the world to expose the 'official report' as being a fabrication, a falsehood, a lie.
-1
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior No, you keep claiming that there is evidence of explosives. You're not getting off the hook that easily. What explosives were used? Period. Its a very simple question, which you don't have an answer to. You keep harping about how explosives were used, as if its a proven fact, so, tell us poor, misguided, uneducated fools what explosives were used. It there is no actual evidence of explosives, then there is no evidence of explosives. Tell us what kind of explosives, or shut the hell up about it.
1
Reply
Male 5,364
whosaidwhat what explosives were used - it's a question a re-investigation into 9/11 would determine.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior THEN STOP ASSERTING AS FACT THAT THERE WERE EXPLOSIVES, UNTIL ACTUAL EVIDENCE COMES TO LIGHT!!! Four simple little words:
Fuck
Your
Willful
Ignorance
0
Reply
Male 5,364
whosaidwhat Explosive evidence was found, but you want to ignore it.  But like i said, if you are just going to get emotional and upset and angry maybe next time you'll think twice before clicking send on a reply where you're trolling.   
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior Are you truly that ignorant? You keep claiming that there is evidence of explosives, yet, you refuse to produce said evidence. If there is evidence, that evidence will tell what kind of explosives were used. Why do you continue to refuse to tell me what kind were used? You keep asserting, as PROVEN FACT, that this evidence exists, yet, you refuse to share it. Why is this? PROOF, OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN! Oh, also, four simple little words:

Fuck
Off
Willfully
Ignorant
0
Reply
Male 5,364
whosaidwhat You're the one ignoring evidence due to your fragile world view.  Also, you can get as emotional as you like, but you're simply continuing to show your own trolling, exposing your own ridiculousness, and still getting no where chasing your losses
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior So I'm ignoring evidence that doesn't exist? How, exactly, does that work? You keep insisting that this evidence exists, but are unable to produce any, or even tell me something so simple as what kind of explosives were used. This so-called "evidence" you speak of should tell that, so why won't you tell me, or at least admit that you are, once again, talking out of your ass and spreading lies? Also, the only emotions I'm feeling over this whole thing are amusement, over how easily deluded you are, and sorrow, over how easily deluded you are. Truly, its a lack of education that's slowly destroying this world, and you are contributing. So very sad.
Four simple little words:
Fuck
Off
Lying
Troll
0
Reply
Male 5,364
whosaidwhat  you're ignoring evidence that has been found to protect your fragile world view.  But like i said, if you are just going to get emotional and upset and angry maybe next time you'll think twice before clicking send on a reply where you're trolling.    
0
Reply
Female 400
Trying to use this to explain why people believe the official version of 9/11 is utterly wrong and shows a basic misunderstanding of the science. I know, I know, a flat-earther has misunderstood the science. I'm as shocked as you are.

A few points:

* The largest effect of this experiment showed that less than 1 in 3 people actually went along with the majority view (32% to be exact). People tend to forget that the result of the experiment actually showed that the most subjects actually didn't go along with the majority. How does that fit with 9/11 theories?

* The study is about conformity in general. To specifically use it for one particular belief - 9/11 for example - and not others - flat earth, moon hoax, young earth creationism to name three - is so absurd as to be laughable. If it's applicable to one of them it's applicable to all of them. 

* The applicability of the study to life today has been called into question. This was a range of studies carried out in 1950s America at the height of McCarthyism, for example, when non-comformity was very much frowned upon. 

* Further studies showed that if the subject was given 1 collaborator (who gave the correct answer before the subject was asked to give theirs) then conformity rates fell to around 5%. So, to make this analogous with MonkWarrior's assertion, the very fact that some people question the official 9/11 story would negate almost all effects of peer pressure conformity attributed to what you might call an Asch effect. In other words, the very studies that MonkWarrior is using show his assertion to be wrong.

Despite being here for so long, I don't really know how this website works. I've never submitted anything. When things get submitted, do they just get posted or is there any kind of vetting process? If there is, can we have less ridiculous uninformed bullshit please?

tl;dr -
This post is irrelevant and meaningless.
2
Reply
Male 5,364
DrCribbens I'll address your point about that some people question the 9/11 story, and conformity rates fell, because when that happens it threatens the group who believed a lie.  As you can see many of the comments here are just that, people expressing how threatened by it they are, and also like you're doing attempting to nullify it because you have believed a lie to be the truth.
-2
Reply
Female 400
monkwarrior Yeah, whatever. The fact of the matter is that this particular study is irrelevant with regards to 9/11.

Either you apply it to all widely held beliefs or to none of them. You don't get to pick and choose just to support your skewed world view. Let's face it, if I'd posted this in relation to people who believe the world is flat, you'd have dismissed it.
2
Reply
Male 3,410
DrCribbens Four Words

Don't
Feed
The
Troll
1
Reply
Male 5,364
-1
Reply
Male 4,880
monkwarrior Mixed simile alert! Ostriches stick their heads in the sand; lemmings jump off cliffs*; squirrels make pedantic usage corrections on silly websites.

*Not really, but that's a topic for another comment.
1
Reply
Male 3,410
squrlz4ever Four Words

Don't
Feed
The
Troll
1
Reply
Male 5,364
squrlz4ever that was the point.
-1
Reply
Male 4,880
monkwarrior Oh. Well, that was as clever as a fireman scoring a homerun.
1
Reply
Male 5,364
squrlz4ever different people have different opinions
-1
Reply
Male 4,880
DrCribbens I loved the final paragraph. Dr. Cribbens, you are a treasure. Great comment, as always.
1
Reply
Female 400
squrlz4ever I don't think I've ever been called a treasure before. It was a genuine question though. Is there a vetting procedure or do comments automatically go on the site once someone submits them? I can't think that would be a good way to run a website. I presume we'd be overrun by posts about Viagra and penis enlargements.
1
Reply
Male 4,880
DrCribbens Well, you were overdue for a treasure compliment then.

Anyway, so far as I understand it, the way things work here is that Fancy reviews the queue of submitted content and accepts what he thinks is appropriate for the site. I do know that he strives for what he calls a "granola mix" of all kinds of different stuff. Often, he'll massage the content of a submission a little and add some text or photos. 

I'm not sure what percentage of submitted items are published, but I'd guess it's about 50% to 70%. Material that isn't accepted will just linger in the queue or be marked "Draft Deleted," which indicates it got the thumbs-down. Reasons why material might not be accepted include (A) it's been published on this site already; (B) it's pornographic, exceptionally violent, or otherwise highly offensive; or (C) Fancy thinks it just isn't interesting enough for the discriminating tastes of the IAB user community.
1
Reply
Male 1,018
Someone is going to tell you that you have a fragile world view.
1
Reply
Male 324
Didn't realize IAB was becoming a refuge for conspiracy theorists. The earth is flat, global warming is a hoax, and 9/11 was an inside job. And Sandy Hook never happened.
1
Reply
Male 40,728
m3dm3d Conspiracies are fun! And far from boring too.
And some turn out to be absolutely true...

If we don't allow BOTH the pro and con sides to speak freely? Then what does that make IAB? 
Boring, that's what. There's hundreds of one-sided echo-chambers out there, yes?
1
Reply
Male 5,364
Here's a more in depth video of the Asch Experiment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyDDyT1lDhA

On average, about one third (32%) of the participants who were placed in this situation went along and conformed with the clearly incorrect majority on the critical trials.  Over the 12 critical trials about 75% of participants conformed at least once, and 25% of participant never conformed.

When they were interviewed after the experiment, most of them said that they did not really believe their conforming answers, but had gone along with the group for fear of being ridiculed or thought "peculiar".  A few of them said that they really did believe the group's answers were correct. Apparently, people conform for two main reasons: because they want to fit in with the group (normative influence) and because they believe the group is better informed than they are (informational influence).

In this video (click) psychologists explain the cognitive dissonance surrounding the denial of the facts surrounding 9/11




-2
Reply
Male 156
monkwarrior In this article, we can all easily see the salient counter-argument to your claims, and why no one should take you seriously.

Would not be difficult to cite further evidence, but this is really all that is needed.

Of greater importance: are you planning on reproducing? Because natural selection's a bitch. 
1
Reply
Male 5,364
BuckeyeJoe i could care less if people with fragile world-views think i go 'full retard'.  If their world-views are so fragile, perhaps they shouldn't hold to them?  I certainly know how to dis-assemble my world-views and re-build, as i've done it many times.  It's better to live by the truth and be true to yourself, rather than hold to a falsehood or lie for life.
0
Reply
Male 156
monkwarrior What you call truth the rest of the sane world would call autistic screeching. 
1
Reply
Male 5,364
BuckeyeJoe yes, like this video shows.
0
Reply
Male 4,135
1
Reply
Male 406

Why Many Americans Still Believe Gravity Exists....


2
Reply
Male 40,728
wolladude Tsk! Y'all yanks will believe anything eh? :-)
1
Reply
Male 8,526
wolladude Gravity does not exist.  The Earth just sucks. 
1
Reply
Male 941
wolladude There's quite a difference between believing something that could have happened and something that we all experience every moment of our lives.  
-1
Reply
Male 1,009
So 9/11 was 4 days ago. Is this trolling garbage going to be posted for the next 361 days?  Hopefully we get a real juicy one over the holidays.
1
Reply
Male 4,880
lockner01 Apparently, Fancy is holding us all hostage. I have no idea WTF his ransom demand is, but I wish he'd hurry up and state it so we can all move on.
1
Reply
Male 756
Bullshitishop: Our Sunday Morning Hypnosis is not working, the new generation is not awake in time.

The Godfather The Pope: Sign up for some of their websites and bludgeon them with righteous posts that manipulate mainstream beliefs to suit ours.
If they dont respond, repost repost repost.
We got Tom Cruise like that..


1
Reply
Male 3,375
my post about the death of the Cassinni space probe doesnt make the cut, but ANOTHER derp 9/11 shitpost gets the green light
4
Reply
Male 538
rumham I would certainly have preferred an article on cassinni rather than this hackneyed old tripe we're getting.
2
Reply
Male 3,410
rumham Here here...and it just crashed into Saturn.
1
Reply
Male 4,135
rumham I'm with ya rummie!
2
Reply
Male 1,018
rumham This is i-am-bored not i-am-intelligent
2
Reply
Male 3,375
marsii yeah it used to be i am entertaining. not i am trolling for the same arguments over and over.
2
Reply
Male 586
rumham fancy is a slave to traffic
1
Reply
Male 3,375
thething911 fantastic
1
Reply
Male 15,259
monkwarrior, you seem pretty convinced and are trying to convince others. Let's agree to disagree on the veracity and move on to implications.

If what you said is true, then the governments of both parties have probably been involved in a grand conspiracy against the people.

Surely, as a trained military man sworn to protect your country from internal threats, you would be taking up arms in defence of your nation's freedoms? Leading a revolution? Forcing at least an enquiry by force of arms? Conducting a one man armed campaign?

You are either a coward and an oathbreaker, or a mischievous punk stirring up obvious bullshit for shits and giggles.

Your inaction disproves the theory you are pedalling.
0
Reply
Male 5,364
Draculya im neither, unfortunately.
-1
Reply
Male 3,415
Draculya monkwarrior is canadian as i recall.
1
Reply
Male 15,259
daegog what is it with Canadians? I thought they were nice people before IAB
1
Reply
Male 8,526
Draculya I just, last night, got back from Canada.

I was very glad to get back from Canada.
1
Reply
Male 835
megrendel Sorry you didn't have a nice trip.
1
Reply
Male 8,526
punko The food was excellent, at least.  Couldn't see,so to find my favorite beer, though. 
1
Reply
Male 835
megrendel Did you ask the wait staff if they would recommend a brew that would be similar to the brew you liked?  In a lot of places where I habit, they do a fairly good job of finding something you'll like.  Mind you, it depends on where you go.  There's a crap ton of regionalization here.
1
Reply
Male 8,526
punko Actually, I did, and they suggested a really good red.  Wasn't as good as the Rickard's I usually get in Montreal, but pretty nice.
1
Reply
Male 835
megrendel Rickards is one of my go-to brews.  Was it a Kieth's Red the offered ?
1
Reply
Male 1,009
Draculya Most of us are nice it's just that in some areas the government experiments with drugs in municiple water systems.
2
Reply
Male 15,259
lockner01 I hear side effects include speaking french.
1
Reply
Male 4,880
lockner01 LOL! You scored. Squirrels seldom guffaw, but I just did.
1
Reply
Male 9,732
Why are we wasting time arguing with someone who thinks the Earth might be flat?

If we continue to comment on these fancy will continue to post them.
1
Reply
Male 5,364
holygod still deluding yourself, i see.
-2
Reply
Male 941
holygod Not sure what one has to do with the other.  Round or flat, 9/11 may or may not have been a conspiracy.  It would be more logical to argue something based on its own merits (or lack of merit).  
0
Reply
Male 9,732
cjeffblanchr I was going to respond to you but since megrendel did it so perfectly I don't really need to.

If there is a guy on the street corner shouting about how the CIA stole his liver to sell it to the Vulcans then you don't really need to listen to anything else he says.
1
Reply
Male 941
holygod And yet so many of you continue to come into the 9/11 posts and "listen" to it--by that I mean arguing it.  If you're that convinced that it's nonsense, why even bother looking?  Seems much more like attempted bullying than anything.
0
Reply
Male 9,732
cjeffblanchr That's what I said. It's a total waste of time.
1
Reply
Male 941
holygod Right.  So why do it?
0
Reply
Male 9,732
cjeffblanchr I'm not arguing with him about 9/11. I'm arguing with you about wether or not someone's blatant stupidity allows you to make judgement calls on their positions.
1
Reply
Male 941
holygod Okay, but if I hold one position that is "blatantly stupid" but make another statement that you agree with, what do you do?  By your logic, if someone is wrong on one thing, everything else they say is invalid as well.
1
Reply
Male 9,732
cjeffblanchr No. You're missing the entire point. I'm sure Monk thinks the sky is blue. The point is if he thinks the Earth might be flat then clearly he is incapable of understanding even the most basic of science and a preponderance of evidence so what is the point of arguing with someone clearly incapable of rational thought?
1
Reply
Male 941
holygod And you would have a valid point if not for the fact that many others also buy into the 9/11 conspiracy theory.
1
Reply
Male 2,607
cjeffblanchr 
Do those people also believe the earth might be flat, the moon landing was a hoax, Stonehenge was maybe built by giants, etc?

Have they claimed to have "facts" about a purely hypothetical future scenario?

Do they complain if pointed out they think the earth might be flat, after questioning its shape, thereby trying to hold two contrary positions on an issue at the same time?
1
Reply
Male 941
jaysingrimm I don't know what they believe.  Some probably do, some don't.  
1
Reply
Male 8,526
cjeffblanchr It has to do that if one is incapable of grasping a simple, provable fact that is so elementary that it is basically axiomatic, then it's doubtful they are capable of any rational thought.  Thus, any 'theory' the put forth is automatically suspect.

Granted, the '9/11 Hoax' theory is not bullshit just because Monkwarrior spews it.  It's bullshit because it's bullshit.

The fact that Monkwarrior supports this bullshit does not help support the bullshit, but demonstrates his lack of reasoning ability.

And, before Monkwarrior's knee-jerk response....'delusion, media delusion, fallacy....'  All words HE thinks wins him the argument...but in reality is nothing more than inane blathering


6
Reply
Male 3,375
megrendel b i n g o
1
Reply
Male 941
megrendel Inane blathering...  kinda like you're response here?  Sorry, cheap shot.  I'm somewhere in the middle on 9/11...  don't think it was all some big conspiracy, but also don't think we have the whole truth.  And seeing that there are undoubtedly questions about the event, it is hardly "blathering".  You buy into what was told to us... fine, you may be right.  But just because you disagree with someone who doesn't does not mean that there is no merit to the questions being asked.  This is not monkwarrior's theory.  
0
Reply
Male 8,526
cjeffblanchr Please note that I did not call it a "Monkwarrior Theory". 

My main comment was what one had to do with another.  Ergo: Monkwarrior is not capable of accepting a scientifically a proven, observable and SIMPLE fact (that the Earth is not flat), then anything else he puts forth and/or supports is equally questionable. 

It's a binary relation (transitive if you will): If a = b and b = c, then a = c.  
2
Reply
Male 941
megrendel So if he claims that the sky is blue we should question it?  Look, I get what you're saying, but it's a total strawman argument to dismiss absolutely everything someone thinks just because they are (presumably) wrong on something else.  Especially when it is an idea supported by plenty of others.
0
Reply
Male 8,526
cjeffblanchr  So if he claims that the sky is blue we should question it?

Such is monkwarrior's ethereal grasp of reality that, if he were to claim the sky is blue, I would check the weather channel and look out the window, twice, before I considered it a fact.  (especially, as they sky is not always blue.)

It comes down to trustworthiness.  If an employee who has a great work ethic and never misses work says he'll come in on Saturday for an extra shift, you can pretty much count on him.  If an employee who has a bad work ethic and a penchant for lying says he'll come in on Saturday, I would believe it when I see it.  

Ergo, not everything monk says is nonsense, but his record makes it more suspect until proven otherwise. 
0
Reply
Male 941
megrendel Fair enough.  But even assuming he is wrong, would you not say that he is probably just mistaken, rather than that he is lying?
1
Reply
Male 8,526
cjeffblanchr I never thought he was lying, just incapable of rational thought on this subject (and many others).
1
Reply
Male 1,798
cjeffblanchr But he's not just wrong on that one point. There are LOTS of things he shows a total lack of rational thought about. If I lied to you, over and over, how long would it take you to stop believing me?
1
Reply
Male 941
whosaidwhat That probably depends on your motivation.  I wouldn't assume everything is a lie, but rather a different perspective... if of course we are talking about things that can in fact have different perspectives. 
1
Reply
Male 1,798
cjeffblanchr But its not about different perspectives. For the 9/11 issue, as a really good example. 1000 degrees F is quite hot enough to weaken steel to the point that it is easily bendable. Jet fuel burns at up to 1500 degrees F. However, he will continuously claim that the fires were not hot enough to melt steel. Carefully read what I just wrote, and you will see that he is claiming that the fires were not hot enough to melt steel, when I never claimed that they were. He totally ignores the FACT that the fires were hot enough to WEAKEN steel. This is not about perspective; this is out and out ignorance, and ignoring the facts.
1
Reply
Male 3,410
whosaidwhat Damn that is a good one.  You nailed it as well as presented the real issue flawlessly by slipping in that word "melt".  I applaud your cunning use of words here.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
kalron27 Thanks! <hoping that your reply wasn't sarcasm...>
1
Reply
Male 3,410
whosaidwhat Nope...Truth... :)
1
Reply
Male 3,643
2
Reply
Male 3,375
DuckBoy87 311 now works at 7/11
1
Reply
Male 3,410
rumham I was wondering what happened to that band.
1
Reply
Male 145
DuckBoy87 I love it!!
1
Reply
Male 3,643
abetterworld I can't take credit for it. I first heard it from Boogie2988, aka Francis
1
Reply
Male 522
all of these nuts should have a party in area 51.

0
Reply
Male 267
1
Reply
Male 40,728
Beaverfever Pusheen!
-1
Reply
Male 267
5cats I had no idea this was a thing.  Just thought it was a cat using its nipples to shitpost.  Haha.
1
Reply
Male 40,728
Beaverfever Those are his teeny little feets :D
He's really funny, that artist has a gift. And a couple of books out too.
1
Reply
Male 145
The basis of every religion. You see how this works monkeywarrior?
4
Reply
Male 5,364
abetterworld most people who don't understand it say that, as you have echoed others saying.
-1
Reply
Male 39,880
monkwarrior  ← pot calling kettle black
1
Reply
Male 5,364
Gerry1of1 like i said, most people who don't understand it, won't.
0
Reply
Male 39,880
monkwarrior " you have echoed others saying "

Pot calling kettle black
1
Reply
Male 5,364
Gerry1of1 like i said.  "most people who don't understand it, won't."
-1
Reply
Male 39,880
monkwarrior not agreeing is not the same is not understanding.
I understand. I comprehend. I just think it's for the weak minded.
1
Reply
Male 5,364
Gerry1of1 The problem is that you think you understand, when you clearly don't. It's one thing to think you know it, and another thing to know it, still another thing to live it.
-1
Reply
Male 39,880
monkwarrior Oh, so anyone who disagrees "doesn't understand". Everyone but you is too stupid to comprehend.  Got it
Typical religious attitude.

1
Reply
Male 5,364
Gerry1of1 Not at all, but many people who think they understand what religions teach, but show as you have that they don't, really don't understand.
0
Reply
Male 3,410
1
Reply
Male 835
abetterworld  This and Gerry's post hit the nail squarely on the head.
1
Reply
Male 3,410
punko yep yep :)
1
Reply
Male 39,880
And how many believe a magic man in the sky made everything in 6 days ?

No one claimed the US was the center of intelligence.
3
Reply
Male 941
Gerry1of1 I've never met anyone who believes in a magic man in the sky.  You do realize that this is a serious Strawman argument, right?  If you don't believe in God then why do you feel the need to make those who do look wrong?  Is it maybe because you have something to lose if God is real, and on some subconscious level you feel better about yourself if you can reinforce disbelief in both yourself and others?  Got news for ya, buddy, if by chance you are wrong on this one, then it really won't make any difference if you believed it or not.  Seriously, if you don't believe, fine.  Why do you feel the need to paint those who do as foolish?
1
Reply
Male 2,607
cjeffblanchr "I've never met anyone who believes in a magic man in the sky.  You do realize that this is a serious Strawman argument, right?"

Not really. He just chose different words to describe 'god in heaven above'.

However, it might be fair to call it an appeal to ridicule.
1
Reply
Male 941
jaysingrimm It can be both.
1
Reply
Male 2,607
Hypothetically.

But calling god a "magic man" is just a different way of describing an entity with abilities beyond understanding, that created us in his image.

Why do you think it's a Strawman?
1
Reply
Male 40,728
jaysingrimm Define 'magic', is it the same as 'miracle'?
1
Reply
Male 2,607
5cats 
"Magic: the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces."

Seems a fair description of the entity's abilities.

"Miracle: a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency."

The term refers more to a specific event, that is welcomed.

"Magic" is being used to describe the entity's abilities, welcomed or not.
1
Reply
Male 40,728
jaysingrimm Well thanks for answering.
You (or Gerry) still are using the term in a derogatory fashion. To the religious believer there is no 'magic' involved it's all miracles, even the bad things like Earth-destroying floods and such.

Mockery is not appeal to ridicule, you're just trolling with that claim. And if Gerry's using a fallacy, doesn't that mean he's incorrect?
1
Reply
Male 2,607
5cats 
No problem.

I agree the term "magic" is being used in a mocking fashion.

I think you'll find 'mockery' makes a good definition of an appeal to ridicule:

"Appeal to ridicule (also called appeal to mockery, ab absurdo...is an informal fallacy which presents an opponent's argument as absurd, ridiculous, or humorous, and therefore not worth consideration."

While we haven't really argued if Gerry's remark ls 'correct' per se*, it would technically be an 'argument from fallacy' (fallacy) to dismiss an argument based soley on the presentation of a logical fallacy.

*Gerry painted religious beliefs in a ridiculous light. Depending on how you interpret that, proving him 'wrong' may mean proving those beliefs wrong.

That is not my intent here.
1
Reply
Male 40,728
jaysingrimm The point is: telling others their religious belief is stupid is NOT a valid proof of your argument. That is why it is called a fallacy in the first place. It's not logic at all.

So calling out that it is rude isn't illogical, it is a valid point.
 
SUB-jectively? One side sees 'a magical man in the sky' while the other sees God Almighty. For one side to claim the other is incorrect because it 'sounds stupid' isn't valid at all. It may BE stupid, but that's not proof of anything, it is just an opinion.
1
Reply
Male 2,607
5cats 
"The point is: telling others their religious belief is stupid is NOT a valid proof of your argument."

I agree, I actually came back to edit a remark I made:

"Gerry painted religious beliefs in a ridiculous light. Depending on how you interpret that, proving him 'wrong' (apart from the mockery) may mean proving those religious beliefs wrong.

That is not my intent here."

5cats:"And if Gerry's using a fallacy, doesn't that mean he's incorrect?"

To elaborate: Whatever underlying argument a fallacy is presented in support of, can not itself be dismissed, based solely on the presentation of that fallacy.

5cats: "One side sees 'a magical man in the sky' while the other sees God Almighty. For one side to claim the other is incorrect because it 'sounds stupid' isn't valid at all."

Once again, I agree.

I wish all our discussions were like this :)
1
Reply
Male 941
jaysingrimm Because the entire statement "magic man in the sky" is absolutely intended as mockery.  Anyone with a level of understanding of what Christianity believes about God above about the age of 3 knows that it's a childish description.
1
Reply
Male 2,607
cjeffblanchr 
What you are describing he presented, is an appeal to ridicule, a 'subtype' of an appeal to emotion.
1
Reply
Male 941
jaysingrimm I'm not actually sure why we're arguing this, but what the heck.  The original statement in question was about the term "magic man in the sky".  This is a clear misrepresentation of the actual belief of a Christian.  Thus, it is a strawman argument, because no one believes that God is a magical man who lives in the sky, and those who use the statement either knows this is the case, or is blatantly ignorant.  Yes, it is also an appeal to ridicule, but it is absolutely an attempt (failed) to make believers look foolish by misrepresenting thier beliefs.
1
Reply
Male 40,728
cjeffblanchr He's an argument troll, he will keep evading your points and asking stupid questions ALL day long. It literally is all he does here, for years now. Trolls.
1
Reply
Male 941
5cats Some people just like to argue, no doubt.  Some are able to have a reasonable discussion, and some just like to go in circles, chasing their own tail.
1
Reply
Male 2,607
cjeffblanchr 
Thing is, he's not required to share your beliefs in his description of them. The way he chose to do so could absolutely be seen as mockery, but his description of your beliefs, to anyone that doesn't share them, is valid.

But yeah, I suppose it is a little thing to argue about.
1
Reply
Male 941
jaysingrimm Well of course no one's required.  Not the point.  The context of the statement was that Christians believe in a magic man in the sky.  But Christians do not believe in a magic man in the sky.  If you wish to believe that God is a magic man in the sky, then by all means, do so.  But it's not valid to claim that that is what I or other Christians believe.
1
Reply
Male 2,607
cjeffblanchr 
"If you wish to believe that God is a magic man..."

I don't have to believe in an entity with abilities beyond understanding, that created us in his image. How I choose to describe such an entity, as opposed to giving that entity a name, does not misrepresent your beliefs, but could be viewed as mockery.
0
Reply
Male 941
jaysingrimm If you admit it is mockery then you've already admitted that it is intentional misrepresentation of the viewpoint.
1
Reply
Male 2,607
I've stated it could be considered an appeal to ridicule, a 'subtype' of an appeal to emotion.

"Appeal to ridicule (also called appeal to mockery, ab absurdo...is an informal fallacy which presents an opponent's argument as absurd, ridiculous, or humorous, and therefore not worth consideration."

"Strawman: an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument."

A 'magic man in the sky' is just a ridiculous way of describing a 'god in heaven above'. Where is it refuted?

And could you explain your previous remark to Grendel?

"Look, I get what you're saying, but it's a total strawman argument to dismiss absolutely everything someone thinks just because they are (presumably) wrong on something else."

Do you still think that was a Strawman?
1
Reply
Male 941
jaysingrimm You're chasing your tail, dude.  By your own listed definition of Strawman Argument, it is clearly a misrepresented proposition.  It is a strawman argument that includes an appeal to ridicule.  As I said, it can--and does--use both.
1
Reply
Male 2,607
cjeffblanchr 
We are not required to use terms like "god" or "miracle" in our descriptions of your beliefs, no matter how much you may want us to. 

His description was ridiculous, but reflected one of an entity with abilities beyond understanding, that created us in his image.

Where was the 'magic man's' existence refuted in place of something else? 

When someone 'presents an opponent's argument as absurd', obviously they don't quote it verbatim.
1
Reply
Male 941
jaysingrimm I've grown bored with this conversation.
1
Reply
Male 2,607
cjeffblanchr 
Thanks for your time.

1
Reply
Male 40,728
jaysingrimm He did not use magic. The Bible never says God uses magic, so you are wrong, again, and that's that!
And calling him a 'magic man' is in fact an unsupported attack: the believers do NOT think he is 'magic' and that makes calling him that a fallacy.
1
Reply
Male 39,880
cjeffblanchr  "If you don't believe in God then why do you feel the need to make those who do look wrong? "

You mean I'm acting like a christian? They tell all the nonbelievers and people of other faith not only are they wrong they will suffer eternal torture.  I'm just following the christian example
1
Reply
Male 941
Gerry1of1 You assume all Christians are the same.  I am Christian and I tell no one that they are wrong.  I might say that I believe I am right, which of course implies that I believe they are wrong, but I do so without condemnation, and without absolute certainty.  While some Christians certainly do what you say, not all of us are the same; regardless though, the difference is that even when a militant Christian tells you that you're wrong, they often are doing so because they actually care about you according to their own beliefs, not because they stand to benefit or because they feel the need to have justification for their beliefs.
1
Reply
Male 1,798
cjeffblanchr Then you aren't much of a Christian, since part of your "mandate" is to educate others about the error of their ways, and get them to convert. The Bible basically COMMANDS you, and your Christian brethren, to do this.
1
Reply
Male 941
whosaidwhat It's not at all a mandate to guilt or threaten people (with Hell) into believing.  It's all about understanding.  There are ways to achieve goals without trying to beat it into someone's head.
1
Reply
Male 1,798
cjeffblanchr But it is your mandate to tell people they are wrong, and will go to hell if they don't believe as you do. You obviously need to go back and study your bible some more.
1
Reply
Male 941
whosaidwhat Show me the passage where it says to tell people they're going to hell if they don't believe as I do.  Seriously, do you really think making something up is going to help your case when all one has to do is look it up?  My mandate is only to out and spread the word, the good news, to make disciples of others, and to stand for the word of God.  This includes arguing (or debating) matters as they pertain to the word of God.  To defend against false claims.  And guess what?  That's exactly what I'm doing here.  What you call "telling people they're wrong" is actually reasoning (or trying to reason) with those who are not believers.  And nowhere am I commanded to judge others in such a way as to condemn them to hell.  That most certainly will not be found in the Bible.  I don't think you'll even be able to find a scripture that can be misinterpreted or misrepresented to say such a thing.
1
Reply
Male 1,798
cjeffblanchr So, what reason does anyone have to convert? "If you join us, you get this. If you don't, nothing special really happens." Whats my motivation?
1
Reply
Male 941
whosaidwhat Well, the reason to convert, assuming my beliefs are correct, is that it's the truth.  It's not about 'getting' something.  It's about doing what's right.  We disappoint our God daily, and that weighs on our conscience.  It's not that doing good erases the wrong that we've done, nor is it that doing wrong negates any good we've done.  In fact it's not really about that at all...  The simple fact--according to my beliefs--is that we cannot ultimately be good people.  The world is too fallen, but by going out and telling others the good news that our maker forgives our wrong doing, we please God, for he has given as a way out of the darkness and to show others the way into the light is good for all.

Once again, if my beliefs are correct, then others benefit from learning this truth (converting).  If I'm wrong, and the atheist is right, then no harm done;  we'll all just take an eternal, mindless nap. 
1
Reply
Male 1,798
cjeffblanchr Right, so "convert, or nothing!" Got it. Good conversion speech! Boy, you've sure convinced me! Failure.
1
Reply
Male 941
whosaidwhat Wasn't trying to convert you.  Just answering your question.  If one doesn't ask sincere questions or show any actual interest in anything but making smarmy comments, there's no reason to try.  
1
Reply
Male 1,798
cjeffblanchr But its your mandate from your God to try!
1
Reply
Male 941
whosaidwhat Is all this your way of asking to be converted?  You seem awfully worked up over it.
1
Reply
Male 1,798
cjeffblanchr No, I just get tired of all the "armchair quarterback" "Christians" who claim to be Christian, but fail to uphold the most basic tenets of their chosen faith.
1
Reply
Male 941
whosaidwhat If you don't believe it, why do you care?

Not everyone has the means to go out into all the nations and preach.  I have a feeling that if they did, you'd be amongst those complaining about all the Christians out there trying to impose their religion on you.  
1
Reply
Male 39,880
cjeffblanchr That old escape. "I'm good, just the other 3 billion are bad". 
Okay you personally don't condemn anyone. 
But we aren't talking about you specifically. 
Christianity does in fact condemn anyone who does not believe as they do to eternity of torture. Even if you personally don't say it out loud.
1
Reply
Male 941
Gerry1of1 Some Christians do condemn, I wouldn't argue that.  But I don't believe that Christianity itself does so.  Some interpret the Bible in such a way, yes, but I think that's when people are trying to find justifications for judging other people--which is not our place.  All I'm trying to say is that I know you're right that many Christians are very judgmental, but not all of us--and I don't really even think the Bible (which of course should be the source of our beliefs) condemns everyone to Hell...    It does make clear statements about what's right and wrong, but doing wrong is not what sends one on the path to hell.

I jump on discussions like this because I think Christianity has been given a bad rep... because of those judgmental Christians who have taken things too far in misunderstanding.  Because of them, I think the important message has been greatly lost, and it has created a distortion of the truth.  I engage comments like yours not just to argue with you, but to gauge interest in hearing viewpoints that might be new to you, because maybe all you've experienced is the bigoted, judgmental Christians preaching what they don't understand.

Forgive my wordiness, if you will.  I'm a bit high on pain medicine at the moment.
1
Reply
Male 39,880
cjeffblanchr If  you don't believe christianity condemns non-believers you haven't read your own bible.
1
Reply
Male 941
Gerry1of1 It's not that black and white.  Point me to a passage and I'm happy to explain my point of view on it, even in a drug-addled state of mind!
1
Reply
Male 156
cjeffblanchr I searched for five minutes. 

1. Nahum 1:3. The LORD is slow to anger and great in power, And the LORD will by no means leave the guilty unpunished In whirlwind and storm is His way, And clouds are the dust beneath His feet.

2. Proverbs 12:2. A good man will obtain favor from the LORD, But He will condemn a man who devises evil.

3. Hebrew 11:7. By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.

4. Malachi 1:14. "There will be harsh condemnation for the hypocrite who has a valuable male animal in his flock but vows and sacrifices something inferior to the Lord. For I am a great king," says the Lord who rules over all, "and my name is awesome among the nations."

5. Samuel 15:3. [God:] Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Honestly, the Bible reads like a Comedy of God's Errors. Shit, he once flooded the whole world -- the greatest mass genocide in history. He even ordered Moses to kill all the Midianite children and keep all the virgin girls for raping (Numbers 31:17).

Condemnation? 

We are far beyond worrying about condemnation. If the bible is true, then God is a butcher and a maniac. The worst in history, especially since he was "all powerful" and hence didn't need to do any of this. YOU are more moral than the God of the Bible.

How on Earth do you manage to rationalize all this away? Truth certainly is not always black and white, but there is no shade of gray that can hide all of this from your conscience. 
1
Reply
Male 40,728
BuckeyeJoe Old Testament BuckEye! Nice try tho!
Christians believe in Jesus and stuff, ok? It is the Jews and Muslims who put more stock in the OT, not the Christians. They believe in it, but are not bound by it. 
1
Reply
Male 156
5cats Not bound by God's word? Isn't the Bible God's word? Do you deny the events in the Old Testament? 

Don't be stupid. 

I think I know more about Christians than you do. 
1
Reply
Male 40,728
BuckeyeJoe Yeah right, lolz! You aren't even aware that Christ re-wrote what the followers of Jehovah (Him too) needed to do to remain pure.
Christ Himself is the 'New Law' and animal sacrifices (for one bloody obvious example) are no longer required. Also we can eat shellfish now :-)

Where do I 'deny the events' in the OT? They aren't meaningful to this discussion so I'm ignoring the lengthy quotations. Moot. God can do as he pleases, He's God! Are you claiming we can pass judgement on The Creator?
1
Reply
Male 156
5cats Yes, yes, I am aware. But he did not correct all the evils of the OT.

Where does Jesus say: "Yeah you know all that slavery stuff, you all got that wrong in the old testament." That's a pretty big deal.

But happy you can eat shellfish now. You can eat shellfish and own slaves, apparently.

Yep, I am claiming we can pass judgement. That is what being moral means. If God acts immoral in the Bible, then we get to call that out. 

Only an amoral drone would define their morality by fiat.
1
Reply
Male 40,728
BuckeyeJoe It wasn't His job to 'correct the evils' what was done? It is done.
He replace most of those laws with new ones, thus what you said about Christians was completely wrong.

Slavery was legal the OT and the NT also. So? Even Jesus couldn't end poverty and He's the Son Of God for fuck's sake! You aren't thinking at all, are you...

And don't dodge questions: where exactly did I say those events 'never happened'? They obviously did, a thousand or more years before Christianity existed. So blaming Christians for them is... stupid.
1
Reply
Male 156
5cats You don't get it at all. The OT condones slavery and depicts stories of God committing atrocities, which are immoral by any reasonable standard.

A common response to this is "but Jesus came and fixed it." The new law to replace the old. This response is easily refuted by stating that nowhere does Jesus correct us about slavery, or say that God didn't actually do those evil things.

So that is where we are. If someone believes the Bible is the word of God, then that word is immoral. If someones does not believe the Bible is the word of God, then why follow it? especially when it is so morally vapid.

What annoys me about talking to you is that I have to spend too much time cleaning up your word-salads to coherently re-state the arguments for you. But I keep doing it, not for your benefit, but any who reads this.
0
Reply
Male 941
BuckeyeJoe Why do you get to decide who is moral or not?  Who are you to decide what God did or did not need to do?  Your applying your own worldview to say what God should do.  Exactly what authority do you have to make such statements?  If there is no ultimate morality, then how can you make any claims of morality?

I can address all of your scriptures if you need me to, but you've taken it all out of the context of the conversation I was having with Gerry.  Likewise, your listed scriptures would have to be considered in context and in accordance with a greater understanding than is given by picking out passages just to try to prove a point.

See, the problem with what you are presenting is that you're reading at least a little too much into some things.  For example, you said that Numbers 31:17 tells Moses to keep the virgin girls for raping. That is not what the passage says.

"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,".  How does that say to rape them?

So much is about context and understanding the world in which these people lived, how God related to them, and how he judged them.
1
Reply
Male 156
cjeffblanchr You honestly must be joking. How ironic that you reference context. The very next clause:

"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

What do you think they did with those virgins, hmmm? Probably a tidy game of pinochle.

This is what astounds me about theists: how they must sacrifice their values to stubbornly hold onto beliefs that are obviously wrong. THERE IS NO CONTEXT THAT MAKES RAPING VIRGINS A MORAL THING TO DO. There is no "but the times were different back then." There is no "But God HAD to do it."

No. Rape is wrong. You know that. Slavery is wrong. There is no context that makes owning another person as property a moral thing to do. You know that. Any God who says otherwise is immoral. Any all-powerful God who resorts to killing is evil.

The authority I have to make such statements is my own morals. I base my morality on evidence: what is harmful vs beneficial. You apparently base your morals on commands from god. In this sense, you are not being moral at all. There are no morals there, you simply follow orders. You are amoral. 

If God commanded you to rape and/or kill and child, would you? He's done it before, you know. If you answer "yes," then you are committing an immoral act. And you know this. If you answer "no," then congratulations -- you recognize that God does not DEFINE morals. You do. And you always did. 
2
Reply
Male 941
BuckeyeJoe People who were not killed in the God-commanded conquest of people groups were assimilated into the culture.  There is nothing to suggest that they lined up the girls to rape them.  Nothing.  They would have been made a part of the nation of Israel and been married into them.  Your misunderstanding of the times and cultures of people is your problem.

As to slavery, it was most certainly not like what we think of in modern times as slavery, but much more like indentured servitude.  Slave owners were much akin to bosses, while the slaves were treated well and fairly (or at least were supposed to be, according to God's commands).  Being one such servant was far better than the alternatives.

Again, you're making moral claims that as an atheist, you have no right to make.  There is no evidence for morals or morality.  There is either one who sets the bar for what morality is, and who would have to by nature be one of the greatest authority, such as God, or there is no true, ultimate morality, and it's nothing more than what a society constructs.  

My morals are defined as what is told to me by a higher authority is right for me to do.  Once again you're making crap up...  when did God command anyone to rape a child?  Yes, he did command the killing of peoples, including their children.  But you are viewing this only through a modern lens and according to how you think all things should be.  To understand these things, you have to have full context--which admittedly is something not always given directly in scripture, but can be inferred.  For example, God commanding his people to go and kill all of another people group, including children, can be viewed as you view it--or in the understanding that these were utterly corrupt groups of people who had been given every opportunity to repent, but chose instead to defy God at every turn.  As to the children, it can be viewed as an act of mercy in the sense that they were taken before they ascended into the corrupted adulthood of their people.

You are not a moral authority who gets to decide what benefits or harms society.  You can have your opinion, of course, but to claim that God should follow your morality is arrogant.  My morality is not based on commands from God, but rather on what God desires and what God knows is best for mankind.
1
Reply
Male 156
cjeffblanchr You have failed to adequately defend God's actions, and attempting to do so only exposing the moral depravity to which you will sink to defend an immoral God. You have claimed that I can exercise no moral judgement because I am an atheist, but proving you wrong is trivial:

"Slavery is immoral, because it is harmful." 

If you don't believe that, then why don't you be my slave...

Incredibly, you have now actually stated for all to see that you support slavery...as long as slaves are treated well or it is culturally acceptable to own slaves.

Hey dumbass, I'll treat you well. Can I own you as property?

They were not indentured servants. That is fake news. Indentured servants get to go free after a certain time, and (sometimes) have the ability to decline the arrangement. 

Killing children as a kindness so that they do not grow up to become non-Christians...holy shit...YOU ARE INSANE IF YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS!

Why didn't God just help them become good people. Me: "Hey, God, since you are all-powerful -- can you help these children?" God: "No, kill them."

I got news for you. It is not morally okay to kill people who are "corrupt" according to your religion. Do you know why? And I can't believe I actually have to explain this to you. Because killing you would be okay according to someone else's religion. 

My religion's God told me it is morally okay to kill you. You cool with that? I am listening to a moral authority, after all.

Your morals are abhorrent. You believe killing children is okay. You believe slavery is okay. You would rape and kill a child if you thought your God commanded it. That is scary, and you need to get psychologically evaluated. This goes beyond our little debate. Go see a professional! Normal people don't think this way.

In truth, we all collectively decide what benefits society. Secular morality is what has been historically effective. Do you know why slavery is illegal in the US today? Because we LEARNED more about morality and recognized it is immoral to own other people as property. If we had your God's wish, we would still own slaves today. During Civil Rights, religious groups spoke out against equality, and cited your Bible for evidence. 

In general, religion retards moral development.
1
Reply
Male 941
BuckeyeJoe Well, since you are incapable of having an intelligent discussion without flying off the handle, I'm done.  There's not one point you've made that cannot adequately and reasonably be resolved, but you your attitude toward me, there's no reason to do so.  You refuse to see that there are other sides to things, so great is your hatred for a God you do not understand.  I hope you don't always hold on to this hatred;  I will include you in my prayers.
1
Reply
Male 156
cjeffblanchr It is absurd to hate something which doesn't exist. I do hate the idea of murdering children, slavery, and rape. Hence, you condoning it is indeed worthy of ire. 

It is moral to stand up against such evil ideas. There is not "another point of view." Rape is wrong, kiddo. That is the only "moral point of view." What is sad is I believe you know this, but pretend not to in order to defend your God.

Don't pretend that being appropriately appalled at the idea of murdering children is somehow "flying off the handle." Your comments were morally untenable, and we do not have to suffer that kind of abusive language.

Predictably, when the moral failings of God's actions are exposed, the theist cries "ad hominem," assures me an answer exists, and runs away without giving one. 

Intelligent indeed.
1
Reply
Male 941
BuckeyeJoe Would you listen to the answer you're given, with a mind capable of seeing that not everything in the world adheres to one narrow point of view?  I don't think you would, as your comments have suggested.  It's not running away...  It's about not wasting time preaching to a rock.
1
Reply
Male 156
cjeffblanchr I enjoy a rather broad view, actually, and am happy to change any one of my views if presented with actual evidence. I've done this many, many times before. That's what science does. Have never (yet) done it with respect to God though. But I WOULD if evidence was forthcoming. Tell me, O narrow-minded one, what would it take for you to NOT believe in God? I can guess your answer: "Nothing." That is what you will say. But do feel free to prove me wrong.

It is narrow minds which are often closed to discourse, because they already know they have the right answer. So no discourse could possibly change their mind. Science is the antithesis to this. 

If I am terse with you it is because I lose my patience. I apologize to you for that. 

You see, your responses are very common ones, and I can't help but get the impression you have not yet bothered to investigate the obvious refutations to them. 

I grow tired of calling out slavery in the bible and hearing back some version of "but they treated their slaves kindly so it is okay."

I grow tired of pointing out God's immoral actions and hearing back some version of "he was sparing them a life of evil."

There seems to be no end to theists demanding that science answers for its beliefs. 

Sooner or later theists need to do the same. 
1
Reply
Male 941
BuckeyeJoe I'm happy to continue this conversation since you seem to have lost your terseness, though I should say that it is pretty inaccurate of you to say that I am narrow-minded, as once you know me, you'll see that I am actually very open minded to different views--far more so than most Christians you'll come across.

For me to not believe in God...  it's a tough question, actually.  See, my views don't come because I was raised Christian, or because the Bible tells me so.  I've have been on the other side--not entirely atheist, but definitely agnostic atheist.  Because of my ability to reason I have become convinced that God must exist.  Because of personal experience, I believe that this God is the God of Christianity and the Bible.

I have absolutely investigate the the refutations to my points of view, and I am able to reject those that answer the questions with points that demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of scripture.  You and I obviously have different views and always will, most likely.  If we can discuss them, agreeing to disagree without hostility, I'm happy to continue.  But when people just demonstrate anger and their words are filled with insult and resort to name-calling, there's no point.  If my responses are common responses, it's probably because a large number of people have also come to the same conclusions as I have.

Let's test this out and try to discuss the slavery issue, since you brought it up again...  Of course I have a problem with slavery as we define it in modern times.  When viewed through modern lenses, slavery in the Bible seems wrong.  As you say, slavery is slavery.  But it is dishonest to ignore the times in which people lived, the culture, the customs, the dangers of the world.  People lived in tribes for the sake of safety.  When people were conquered, those who lived did become slaves--but whether you can see it or not, these were not slaves as we think of slaves today.  They really were more of indentured servants.  In ancient Israel they were kept for 6 years and set free on the 7th.  There are numerous commands on how to treat slaves. 

I'm not sure what you're talking about when you said, "There seems to be no end to theists demanding that science answers for its beliefs."  I don't demand that science answers anything about my beliefs.  I believe that correct science will confirm my beliefs, and I've yet to see any instance where it doesn't--and keep in mind that I'm not talking about the most accepted interpretation of scientific evidence.  Just because most have subscribed to evolution does not necessarily mean that it is the only interpretation of the scientific facts. 

Science cannot be used to prove or disprove God, and I don't expect it to.  Science is not the absolute answer to everything.  It can only cover certain aspects of our existence.
1
Reply
Male 156
cjeffblanchr Here is the quote about slavery:

“Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. 2 When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone.5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever."

Hence, your comment that they are indentured servants is false. Only Hebrew slaves were set free on the seventh year. BUT, if they were given a wife, then they could not take that wife with them. The only way they could keep their wife is if they voluntarily accepted enslavement for life.

Nice loophole for the slave owners: freedom alone or enslavement with your family.

Plus, this only applies to Hebrew slaves. Non-Hebrew slaves were not afforded this chance. What is your answer to this?

I understand your need to re-frame biblical slavery to minimize the immorality of it, but you will be hard pressed to find scriptural evidence to support you. The bible indeed explains how slaves are to be treated, the rules for beating them...have you read your bible? This is not an attack, it is a serious question. 

You are correct, of course. Many theists before you have come to the same conclusions and used the "go free on the seventh year" response. It demonstrates a clear and pervasive misunderstanding of the scripture.

I am not a moral relativist. Morality is not culturally or religiously bound. If a culture believes killing babies to appease invisible Gods is morally sound, they they are wrong. They do not get a free pass because it is their culture. They may have acted the best they knew how in order to survive, but that does not insulate them from moral criticism. The act was still immoral.

A God who is morally just would not condone slavery, and would understand that owning people as property is not moral. 

Please feel free to offer me a scenario that you think describes moral slavery. 

About your other statement:

"I believe that correct science will confirm my beliefs, and I've yet to see any instance where it doesn't--and keep in mind that I'm not talking about the most accepted interpretation of scientific evidence."

Let's explore some examples. Why don't you offer a few of your beliefs that science has confirmed (and mention how that science confirmed it). Thai should not be difficult, since you claim that you have yet to find an instance where it doesn't. 

P.S. atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive terms. Agnosticism is not "half-way" between theist and atheist. If someone asks you if you believe in God, and you say you are agnostic, then you haven't answered the question.
1
Reply
Male 1,009
Gerry1of1 Everyone know the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the earth.
1
Reply
Male 39,880
lockner01 Flying Spaghetti Monster pooped out the Earth. Everyone knows that.
1
Reply
Male 540
lockner01 Bah, all true believers know that Jibbers Crabst, created the world for his chosen beings, the bombardier beetles.  We are just fortunate he lets us ride along with them.

1
Reply
Male 941
lockner01 Still going on about that nonsense?  You still need a better argument.
0
Reply
Male 685
cjeffblanchr How is his God nonsense, but yours is truth?
1
Reply
Male 941
snoopybg For one, the FSM is admittedly (by he who imagined it) made up as a mockery (a ridiculous one).  Also, one is backed by sensible belief, reason, logic, testimony, and personal experience.  God and the FSM are not comparable.
1
Reply
Male 1,009
cjeffblanchr I'll make the same point I've made before.  There is as much evidence for the existance of the FSM as there is for your god.  You could replace FSM with Zues or Odin if it makes you feal better.
1
Reply
Male 941
lockner01 And I'll crush your argument just as I have before, or I would if there was any valid reason to...  we pretty much argued it to it's obvious end before.  Feel free to track down the previous discussion on it to be humbled by it once more.  See, if we were to discuss it again, it would end as it ended before...  you would run out of points to make--because even you know it's a nonsensical argument--and you'd stop replying, only to wait a time before sticking it into a conversation again, hoping that people will jump all over your 'brilliance' of bringing up such a tired, worn out, ridiculous argument.  Seriously, dude, even you know it's a bad argument... let it dieeeeee!!!!
0
Reply
Male 156
cjeffblanchr I'll go toe-to-toe with you. No problem. 

And if you can present once single piece of evidence whose standard is higher than the evidence I present for the FSM, I'll convert to your religion.

I can make shit up that is just as viable as your God, as far as actual evidence goes, and I bet I can do a better job.

The FSM does not kill people, or order the killing/raping of people. Nor does the FSM condone slavery. My god is superior to yours. 

Plus, FSM super tasty. Yumm.
1
Reply
Male 941
BuckeyeJoe And what kind of evidence would you allow in such a discussion?  I would assume that you're going to appeal to scientific evidence, rather than philosophical, rational, logical, experiential evidence.  If so, it's pointless, because such a discussion is largely outside of the realm of science.

Unfortunately for you, you've already lost the argument, though, because you just openly admitted that you will just "make shit up".  
As to your last sentence (before the yumm), can you point me to the scripture where God ordered the raping of people?
0
Reply
Male 156
cjeffblanchr See my response to your other post for the raping. 

I will allow ANY evidence and apply it to the same standard.

Examples follow: 

"I feel like its true." feelings = low standard. My feeling are different. Stalemate.

"My experience is that its true." anecdote = low standard. See above. 

"But I SAW it." senses are easily deceived = low standard

I will not make shit up about the standards -- and I will apply them equally to your evidence and mine.

What I will make up is shit about the FSM. And the shit I make up will satisfy the same standards of evidence that you will offer. That is the bet, dude.

I can make up utter nonsense and it will fare no worse than "evidence" you present for the existence of God. 

I Don't blame you for not wanting to play. This is a set-up...and you will get your ass handed to you.

But if your God is real you have nothing to fear....
1
Reply
Male 941
BuckeyeJoe I would "get my ass handed" to me only in the sense that your demonstrated arrogance shows that you are unable to have a reasonable discussion.  You impose your morality on everything, which hold absolutely no water.  And again, you've already lost such a debate because you admit you would be making shit up.  You would not accept the slightest bit of evidence because you cannot reasonably consider any view outside your own narrow view.  You don't get to set all boundaries for a debate according to your own terms, just to benefit your view.  
 
1
Reply
Male 156
cjeffblanchr Okay, Jeff. As you wish.

Why don't you set the terms yourself. Why don't you make the rules so that you have an upper hand? I'll still participate in the discussion, because the truth doesn't need to hide. 

But you...you need to hide. Go hide, Jeff, go hide.

If you ever grow the balls, I'll be here. 
1
Reply
Male 941
BuckeyeJoe Demonstrate that you can have an adult conversation without getting so worked up and by behaving reasonably, and I'm game.  Until then, there is nothing I can do for you but pray for you.
1
Reply
Male 156
cjeffblanchr You just keep on praying Jeff. Like a boy whistling in the dark.
1
Reply
Male 1,009
cjeffblanchr I think you feel you crushed me in your own mind. I didn't run out of points I ran out of time and I seemed to be upsetting both you and monk -- which is not my goal.

If you want to go through your points one-by-one I am more than willing to debunk anything you throw at me.

I stand by my statement that there is as much evidence for the existence of your god as there is for the FSM, or Zues, or Odin or one of the other 2,000 gods that people have worshipped.
1
Reply
Male 941
lockner01 Why do you guys always just assume that I (and possibly monkwarrior) are getting upset?  Discussing or arguing does not upset me.  Ever.  I enjoy it too much.

As before, I'm not going to argue the FSM with you, because we both know it is made up.  If you want to discuss other gods, then by all means, do so, but let's keep it to the realm of reason--as in a god someone actually believed in rather than something so foolish as the FSM.

But if we're going to have such a discussion, which I am fine with, such words as 'evidence' need to be defined...  If we're only talking about scientific evidence, then it's pointless, as such a discussion must by its nature go outside of the realm of science and into philosophical concepts.  Science is only the observable.  
1
Reply
Male 1,009
cjeffblanchr Sure -- I agree with everything you've said other than the FSM -- but I'll drop the FSM if it would allow us to further the conversation.

I would prefer to do it in another post however as I'm sick of 9/11 posts and I don't want to give this one more traction.
1
Reply
Male 941
lockner01 Yeah I'm good with that.  I wish these were open forums sometimes, where we could just start a discussion without hijacking a post.  
1
Reply
Male 1,798
cjeffblanchr Run out of points? Ok, try me.
1
Reply
Male 3,375
Gerry1of1 monk hails from canada.. can't blame this shitvomit on 'murica
0
Reply
Male 1,509
Gerry1of1 "And how many believe a magic man in the sky made everything in 6 days ?"
Horsehockey! We live in a computer simulation!
1
Reply
Male 3,375
squidbush but the simulation is flat.. and the simulation loves us but judges us also
1
Reply
Male 941
rumham Ah, yes, mockery is such a valid and intelligent method of arguing.
0
Reply
Male 3,375
cjeffblanchr your faith must be pretty flimsy if my goofing around gets you fired up
1
Reply
Male 941
rumham I'm not fired up.  Just pointing out the obvious.  But on a good note, I don't think my problem has been a lack of fiber.
1
Reply
Male 3,375
cjeffblanchr too much fiber then? are you freebasing flax seed again?
1
Reply
Male 941
rumham I never did try the flax seed.  Turns out that my intense need to poop is probably related to my gallbladder being packed with stones.
1
Reply
Male 3,375
cjeffblanchr kidney stones are no joke... stay strong bro. and if you wanna be regular yeah try some flax seed
1
Reply
Male 941
rumham Yeah, I'll see how I feel after all the stones are gone.  If there's any issues, I'll try the flax seed.  Thanks man!!!
1
Reply