what is with theists, and their common 40iq takes?

[mohito]

Page 3

 

[ICL]

Page 3

do you think this is the new meta for long ass threads?

going from racebait to faithbait

 

[mohito]

do you think this is the new meta for long ass threads?

going from racebait to faithbait

Users usually get way more emotional about race than religion. Racebait still mogs

 

[ICL]

Users usually get way more emotional about race than religion. Racebait still mogs

racebait has the same circlejerk of 10 users

we need to get with the times bro

 

[NVM_Ignacio]

can you rephrase this?
You believe I mock people that believe in a god, just as much as I believe he exists/doesn't exist?

Im sorry if my english is not really complex or understandable, it is not my first language.
What I mean is that you mock people that believe in God, when you and the person you are mocking have the same proof that God exists or doesnt, no proof.

I don't need to debunk saint thomas aquinas argument.

I can just make a new argument, and if that argument is true, then god doesn't exist. Since God is infallible, all arguments against him must be true for him to exist.

It is not possible to make an argument that proves the existence/unexistence of God.

And whatever thomas aquinas' works are, is something for me to research later. if you're not gonna show his argument directly then idl how i'd respond to you, the burden of proof is not on me

So basically Aquinas came up with 5 arguments to prove God exists.
1. Nothing moves on its own. Everything that moves gets moved by something else. That chain can't go back forever, so something had to start it all without being moved itself. That's God.
2. Nothing causes itself. Everything has a cause. Since you can't go back infinitely, there has to be a first cause that wasn't caused by anything. That's God.
3. Everything could just not exist. Nothing in the world has to exist. If nothing had to exist, at some point there'd be nothing at all. But stuff exists, so something out there has to exist by nature, no matter what. That's God.
4. Things are better or worse than each other. Like we say something is "more beautiful" or "kinder." But you can only compare things if there's a maximum, a perfect version. Something has to be the most perfect thing. That's God.
5. Things have a purpose. Even stuff without a brain, like plants or planets, behave in consistent, goal-oriented ways. That doesn't happen by accident. Something intelligent has to be guiding it all. That's God.

This is just a vague explanation I give u to have a fresh basic understanding of what Aquinas talked about.

Until this day nobody has debunked his arguments, he is known to be the most intelligent theologian ever.

 

[NVM_Ignacio]

Users usually get way more emotional about race than religion. Racebait still mogs

I think if you mock hinduism it could mog

 

[mohito]

I think if you mock hinduism it could mog

Absolutely, or just mock the entire indian race

 

[NVM_Ignacio]

Absolutely, or just mock the entire indian race

they are used to that bro

 

[ICL]

If you reply, expect an extremely delayed response, I must log offf or now.

Thanks for the insight though, I'll read about this person later, when I can.

What I mean is that you mock people that believe in God, when you and the person you are mocking have the same proof that God exists or doesnt, no proof.

Thing is, I don't need to prove god doesn't exist. the burden of proof is on those saying god exists because that's an explanation they have created

It is not possible to make an argument that proves the existence/unexistence of God.

God in general isn't possible to debunk.

The main abrahamic religions are tackle-able though, which the majority of people are.

1. Nothing moves on its own. Everything that moves gets moved by something else. That chain can't go back forever, so something had to start it all without being moved itself. That's God.

I need to understand why this argument special pleads god. could this not be a supernatural event that... just happened?

this is not proof of god, just the explanation for what the universe couldve possibly started for

if you attribute to a god so hastily, you're initiating God of the Gaps fallacy, if you explain things with "god" then god lives in a gap and once that gap is solved, that gap shrinks.

Similarly to how many thought lightning is a work of god. Now it isn't, so, the gap just shrunk for what god caused. Is it possible god did none of them? sure. is it possible god did a select few of them that we don't understand? sure, I don't know why a rational god would do that.

2. Nothing causes itself. Everything has a cause. Since you can't go back infinitely, there has to be a first cause that wasn't caused by anything. That's God.

practically the same as the first argument, I think mine is enough

3. Everything could just not exist. Nothing in the world has to exist. If nothing had to exist, at some point there'd be nothing at all. But stuff exists, so something out there has to exist by nature, no matter what. That's God.

This is another God of the gaps fallacy. You explain this, and say it's god, without any evidence or explanation

4. Things are better or worse than each other. Like we say something is "more beautiful" or "kinder." But you can only compare things if there's a maximum, a perfect version. Something has to be the most perfect thing. That's God.

Under what basis?

You don't need a maximum to know somethings better than the other. This does not follow

5. Things have a purpose. Even stuff without a brain, like plants or planets, behave in consistent, goal-oriented ways. That doesn't happen by accident. Something intelligent has to be guiding it all. That's God.

All of these things adjust due to how the universe works.

If the universe's laws did not conform to habitable life, the universe wouldn't be observed by anyone. therefore, it wouldn't exist, as there are no observers. This is a topic about quantum mechanics.

 

[NVM_Ignacio]

If you reply, expect an extremely delayed response, I must log offf or now.

Thanks for the insight though, I'll read about this person later, when I can.



Thing is, I don't need to prove god doesn't exist. the burden of proof is on those saying god exists because that's an explanation they have created

God in general isn't possible to debunk.

The main abrahamic religions are tackle-able though, which the majority of people are.

I need to understand why this argument special pleads god. could this not be a supernatural event that... just happened?

this is not proof of god, just the explanation for what the universe couldve possibly started for

if you attribute to a god so hastily, you're initiating God of the Gaps fallacy, if you explain things with "god" then god lives in a gap and once that gap is solved, that gap shrinks.

Similarly to how many thought lightning is a work of god. Now it isn't, so, the gap just shrunk for what god caused. Is it possible god did none of them? sure. is it possible god did a select few of them that we don't understand? sure, I don't know why a rational god would do that.

practically the same as the first argument, I think mine is enough

This is another God of the gaps fallacy. You explain this, and say it's god, without any evidence or explanation

Under what basis?

You don't need a maximum to know somethings better than the other. This does not follow

All of these things adjust due to how the universe works.

If the universe's laws did not conform to habitable life, the universe wouldn't be observed by anyone. therefore, it wouldn't exist, as there are no observers. This is a topic about quantum mechanics.

No problem brah, Ill be responding in a sec, Im lazy now but Im bookmarking this

 

[ICL]

No problem brah, Ill be responding in a sec, Im lazy now but Im bookmarking this

did the same

 

[Lemur]

God when he’s asked to accept the prayers of starving kids for once instead of that one foid that needs a prom dress in white

god listening to my prayers so i get triple A* but letting that 8 year old congolese child get his brains bashed out by a local warlord

 

[Lemur]

No problem brah, Ill be responding in a sec, Im lazy now but Im bookmarking this

did the same

yall 2 are so respectful isnt kinda cute ngl

 

[Lyndon]

@Lyndon what do u think?

About the guy who made the thread, I think his statement lacks value because he made a broad generalization and applied it to theists as a whole.

As for the guy in the comment section, I think his reply to the girl who said, "Doctors and surgeons will save him," was overly simplistic. Doctors and surgeons will certainly do everything they can; they have the knowledge and skills to try to save him, and I sincerely hope they succeed. However, as a Christian, I believe that the ultimate source of those abilities and of any successful outcome is God.

Thanks for the mention!

 

[Niebvll]

L bait

 

[ICL]

About the guy who made the thread, I think his statement lacks value because he made a broad generalization and applied it to theists as a whole.

I've already changed the title to not be a strong generalization, and I could give you an instance with a bigger sample group than just 1 person

 

[Lyndon]

I've already changed the title to not be a strong generalization, and I could give you an instance with a bigger sample group than just 1 person

I mean for every sample you could give me
I could apply that to any other sample of people with bad takes, for example atheists or muslims
Still It wouldn't be fair to apply that to the whole group and it wouldn't make sense, so I won't
Still we could mention Theists with incredibly HighIQ takes and that wouldn't prove anything
Same applies to atheists or muslims or any other religion or ideology.

 

[ICL]

I mean for every sample you could give me
I could apply that to any other sample of people with bad takes, for example atheists or muslims
Still It wouldn't be fair to apply that to the whole group and it wouldn't make sense, so I won't
Still we could mention Theists with incredibly HighIQ takes and that wouldn't prove anything
Same applies to atheists or muslims or any other religion or ideology.

By what I meant, is a random sample, not a bunch of instances of low IQ theist takes. For instance, I'd take a theist post, evaluate the comments, which would reasonably be arguing and fighting about God, and bring myself to a conclusion: who was better in this debate? Theists or Atheists? Now, this wouldn't be as fallacious of a sample, unlike that child or purposefully selecting low IQ theist takes (that'd be confirmation bias otherwise).

I would like to also mention how the impact of these theists saying out of pocket things are arguably worse than atheists saying out of pocket things. No atheist spontaneously says something about faith, but theists do make this about God, discredit surgeons and go on with their day, desensitized as usual,

 

[Lyndon]

By what I meant, is a random sample, not a bunch of instances of low IQ theist takes. For instance, I'd take a theist post, evaluate the comments, and bring myself to a conclusion: who was better? Theists or Atheists? Now, this wouldn't be as fallacious of a sample than that child or purposefully selecting low IQ theist takes (that'd be confirmation bias otherwise).

I would like to also mention how the impact of these theists saying out of pocket things are arguably worse than atheists saying out of pocket things. No atheist spontaneously says something about faith, but theists do make this about God, discredit surgeons and go on with their day, desensitized as usual,

Yeah, and it wouldn't change anything regarding whether theism is true or false or HigherIQ or LowerIQ. Even if you picked a random sample and found many people making those kinds of comments, that would only tell us something about the people in the sample, not about the truth of their beliefs.

You consider their take a bad one, and that's your perspective, which is fine. But people from every worldview say out-of-pocket things from time to time, and that doesn't automatically make their worldview false or irrational.

Theists bring God into the discussion because they see Him as the ultimate source and ontological foundation of reality. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. Most of the time, they are not discrediting surgeons or doctors. You assumed they were and interpreted their comments that way.

The guy never said, "God will save him and the doctors won't." In classical Christianity, doctors and surgeons are understood to be the means through which healing often occurs. Christians generally believe that doctors will do everything they can, using their knowledge and skills, and we sincerely hope they succeed. At the same time, we believe that the ultimate source of those abilities and of any successful outcome is God.

God bless.

 

[ICL]

Yeah, and it wouldn't change anything regarding whether theism is true or false or HigherIQ or LowerIQ. Even if you picked a random sample and found many people making those kinds of comments, that would only tell us something about the people in the sample, not about the truth of their beliefs.

Well, I'm not saying anything about their beliefs. Just a gap in their logic when it comes to serious cases. Additionally, it would be fairly bold to say that the sample was coincidentally filled with a lot of irrational people that do not represent theists (the lower quartile of theists), and not the average theist, if that makes sense.

You consider their take a bad one, and that's your perspective, which is fine. But people from every worldview say out-of-pocket things from time to time, and that doesn't automatically make their worldview false or irrational.

It's not a rational decision to say something out of pocket, when there's a person suffering on the table. Mentioning God will clearly and repeatedly offend people, since something like this is very serious; no matter how correct he is about the existence of god, it's not going to be perceived as empathy, especially after that follow up comment, which was the one I attacked.

Theists bring God into the discussion because they see Him as the ultimate source and ontological foundation of reality. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. Most of the time, they are not discrediting surgeons or doctors. You assumed they were and interpreted their comments that way.

The guy never said, "God will save him and the doctors won't." In classical Christianity, doctors and surgeons are understood to be the means through which healing often occurs. Christians generally believe that doctors will do everything they can, using their knowledge and skills, and we sincerely hope they succeed. At the same time, we believe that the ultimate source of those abilities and of any successful outcome is God.

The kid we discussed about, excuses what God did to the child (cause him to be deformed in the first place) by mentioning adam and eve, it feel's as if he's not trying to send a message of empathy, it felt more like he tried to justify what God does after mentioning God's existence.

He also said this without anyone critiquing God's existence. Sounds like a rascal to me.

 

[Lyndon]

Everything you said

But that's exactly the point I've been making from the beginning. Even if you found many examples of the same behavior, all you would have established is a conclusion about the sample. You still wouldn't have shown that it is representative of theists as a whole.

As for whether the comment is offensive, that's still your interpretation of it. Some people may find it offensive, some may find it comforting, and some may not care at all. You don't know whether the family is Christian, religious, or non-religious, so you can't assume how it will be received.

More importantly, being offended by a statement doesn't determine whether the statement is rational, true, or inappropriate in every context. It only tells us how certain people perceive it.

And regarding the commenter himself, you're attributing motives that you cannot actually verify. You say he was trying to justify what happened to the child rather than express empathy, but that's an inference on your part. Unless he explicitly stated that intention, you're interpreting his motives through your own lens.

As for mentioning God, there really isn't much mystery to it. People are free to express their beliefs, he wasn't advocating harm, and from a Christian perspective God occupies a central role in one's understanding of reality (as I said earlier...) . If someone genuinely believes God is the ultimate foundation of reality, it is perfectly natural that God would be mentioned when discussing suffering, healing, life, or death.

You may disagree with that perspective, but disagreement alone doesn't make it irrational.

 

[ICL]

But that's exactly the point I've been making from the beginning. Even if you found many examples of the same behavior, all you would have established is a conclusion about the sample. You still wouldn't have shown that it is representative of theists as a whole.

Would you say that if I took a sample of X people, and examined them, and saw abundance in Y, would you say that X is correlated with Y?

Why not?

The more people in the sample, the less bias and the better you can attribute it to the whole population. Usually, 100-400 people are enough as well, to represent a population.

As for whether the comment is offensive, that's still your interpretation of it. Some people may find it offensive, some may find it comforting, and some may not care at all. You don't know whether the family is Christian, religious, or non-religious, so you can't assume how it will be received.

If you say a statement that you think has a chance of being offensive, and your goal is for the statement to be empathetic, why say such statement? Can you not improvise for a better message, that's less offensive, and doesn't have God mentioned?

And regarding the commenter himself, you're attributing motives that you cannot actually verify. You say he was trying to justify what happened to the child rather than express empathy, but that's an inference on your part. Unless he explicitly stated that intention, you're interpreting his motives through your own lens.

Well, I just told you why I think this was not a sign of empathy.

You seem to be more focused on my perspective and subjectivity. Not objectivity.

If I was a theist myself, and was mocking him for the same reason, what would your response be? I would have the same message, different lense, and therefore you'd have to refute that, not me. At this stage, you're focused on me, not the substance of my argument.

More importantly, being offended by a statement doesn't determine whether the statement is rational, true, or inappropriate in every context. It only tells us how certain people perceive it.

It is irrational to do so, as you make a statement, that is meant to be empathetic but comes out offensive.

What do you think is more rational?
"I'm sorry for your loss"
"I'm apologetic for your loss"

You'd say "sorry" as there are certain people that would interpret "apologetic" in a bad way (i.e. they think of apologists).

Your intent (the input) is useless if it is percieved poorly (the output).

As for mentioning God, there really isn't much mystery to it. People are free to express their beliefs, he wasn't advocating harm, and from a Christian perspective God occupies a central role in one's understanding of reality (as I said earlier...) . If someone genuinely believes God is the ultimate foundation of reality, it is perfectly natural that God would be mentioned when discussing suffering, healing, life, or death.

Individuals will feel alienated if religious terms are forced upon them in environments where religion shouldn't matter.

I reckon that kid's forcing it since he tries to justify why he looks like that in the first place (even though nobody even said that, and respectfully said the doctors will save said child)

Your response to this is that I interpreted this in another lenses. If the population has my lenses (most of the replies to that were negative) then why say something that'll clearly offend the population?

You may disagree with that perspective, but disagreement alone doesn't make it irrational.

What he did is irrational, since it has a high risk of being percieved poorly. What he said isn't irrational, what he did is.

 

[Lyndon]

Everything you said again

Cool, that's your opinion dude!
Take care

 

[ICL]

Cool, that's your opinion dude!
Take care

...

 

[ICL]

@81xa never tag this faggot again

 

[krieg]

@ICL after yall niggas fell for the rep farm

 

[ICL]

@ICL after yall niggas fell for the rep farm