IOS devices (iPods, iPads, iPhones) have no JavaScript debugger



  • @ASheridan said:

    You are trying to have it both ways. You are saying that a person (nonpartisan) can claim a person (nonpartisan) was in a certain place at the right time because of gods actions. Then you say that I can't infer that gods actions were what caused the people to be in the accidents that nonpartisan arrived at. Why is one assumption fine, but mine not so? Both are assumptions attributing certain events to the actions of a god. I see no logical reason why one set of actions cannot be attributed whilst another can.

    You make a good point; it's inconsistent to make one set of assumptions about something unknowable and disregard another. But just to play devil's advocate, how about this: If we humans, in some way, obtained evidence of god acting in certain ways, could we then use that evidence to determine whether or not some other action was god's?

    If yes, then I think it's safe to say that from nonpartisan's perspective, arranging him to be nearby to help the accident victims is in line with god's actions, but causing the accident in the first place is not. This conclusion is based on evidence from nonpartisan's own experiences and what those experiences suggest about the nature of god.

    Off topic, this is the most civil religious discussion I've ever encountered on the internet. Kudos!


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @ASheridan said:

    You are trying to have it both ways. You are saying that a person (nonpartisan) can claim a person (nonpartisan) was in a certain place at the right time because of gods actions. Then you say that I can't infer that gods actions were what caused the people to be in the accidents that nonpartisan arrived at. Why is one assumption fine, but mine not so? Both are assumptions attributing certain events to the actions of a god. I see no logical reason why one set of actions cannot be attributed whilst another can.

    This is completely not what I'm saying. Perhaps you've forgotten what you wrote:

    @ASheridan said:

    Either he created the accidents and engineered for you to be there, or it was all happenstance.

    You've set up two mutually exclusive scenarios and declared it impossible for there to be other scenarios. It's not that you or nonpartisan believe in one or the other, but that you've tried to rule out anything else as a possibility. In particular, that he was responsible for some, but not all of this (which is really many different options, depending on how you slice it up, of course).

    @ASheridan said:

    Ps, I've just argued my way out of your wet paper bag, but I've yet to see you explain any of this logically.

    Yes, we've established that you don't understand how to identify a logical fallacy.

    @ASheridan said:

    You just keep reiterating that I can't make assumptions while defending those who make assumptions that agree with your own viewpoint.

    No, that's not what I did at all. I merely pointed out that you created a false dichotomy.

    Look, you or anyone else could believe that one of your options is correct. There is no way to prove, via logic, that any such belief is correct or incorrect. But you incorrectly stated the range of possible beliefs, and I pointed that out. Now, you have also imagined that I have shared my belief on this topic.

    Pardon me for the non-car analogy, but suppose we were talking about a game of chess, and you stated, "Either Player A won or Player A lost." This is a false dichotomy, as a chess game could end in a draw.



  • @nonpartisan said:

    But there's so much more to it than how you're trying to simplify it.

    There really isn't.

    @nonpartisan said:

    I just got a seat on the train. Do I consider that divine intervention since it doesn't happen often? No, I consider that luck. As much as I have emotions that are real, so do I also have a spiritual sense. I don't feel my getting a seat is from Him.

    So again, you're drawing an arbitrary line bretween "a little coincidence" and "a lot of coincidence", and claiming "The big coincidence cannot be. I do not have an explanation. This suggest to me God."

    This is false.

     

    @nonpartisan said:

    you have to be open to a possibility before you can accept that it may be true.

    Bollocks. I have to be open to any rational possiblity, but not to all figments of my imagination.

    Your possibility is a presupposed one based on zero (repeatable) observations. You only have this option in your back pocket because you were raised into it, or heard from it from other people. I can imagine any random concept, and try to define it with some fictional gameplay rules, and then apply it whenever I see something I don't understand. Which is exactly what you're doing.

    But that's not helpful. It doesn't advance my knowledge, nor anyone else's. It keeps me in the dark. It means giving up. It means accepting stupidity and ignorance.

    There's this door and I don't know what's behind it. You expect me to be open to the possibility that there's a cross-dressing minotaur behind it, ready to give me a fine chocolate-chip cookie (because it loves me), but I have absolutely no cause to think that. Thus I will not consider the option. Fucking up the wiring of a house, however, is a fine possibility, even if pride is keeping me from wanting to explore that avenue.

    Should it happen, though, I will reinvestigate what the hell that minotaur is doing there, obviously. But what you're asking of me is not reasonable.

    @nonpartisan said:

    I have no evidence my wife has cheated on me. I have no evidence she hasn't. My belief is that she hasn't. Blest am I for believing without having to see.

    Well, that's called trust, and it can be tested, but you won't, and the reason you won't because it's disrespectful towards your wife. If the only reason you don't test it is because of this false superiority of "faith", then that makes you a bad person.

    @nonpartisan said:

    My belief in God is based on a sense of spirituality and a continuum of experiences.

    Spirituality is fine. 

    This "continuum of experiences", however is usually called "compound error". One false conclusion can't serve as a data point in conjunction with other false conclusions. Hey, these conclusions are pretty bad! But I have lots of them!

    @nonpartisan said:

    How about the visions of the Blessed Mother that have been seen in Medjugorje (I think I got that spelled right)? They continue to this day. If a person believes that these are the experiences of crazy people, or dope smokers, or what have you, they will never be convinced that it's divine intervention, whether it is or isn't.

    Audiophiles believe that drawing green lines on your CDs improves the sound. Or that vinyl has infinite resolution.

    @nonpartisan said:

    If you can't believe in the possibility of divine intervention, then it's hopeless for me to even try.

    I shouldn't have to believe. Real stuff is real regardless of what I believe. Either demonstrate it directly, or show me that there is reasonable ground for investigation. So far, nothing. A set of random shit coming together is pretty thin evidence. Is it not far more interesting and fulfilling to try and find out what could cause these unlikely combination of events you describe? Instead, you shrug and somehow conclude that it must be divine intervention. Way to go.

    It bears repeating: What you're doing equates to giving up. It means accepting stupidity and ignorance; primarily one's own.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @ASheridan said:
    You are trying to have it both ways. You are saying that a person (nonpartisan) can claim a person (nonpartisan) was in a certain place at the right time because of gods actions. Then you say that I can't infer that gods actions were what caused the people to be in the accidents that nonpartisan arrived at. Why is one assumption fine, but mine not so? Both are assumptions attributing certain events to the actions of a god. I see no logical reason why one set of actions cannot be attributed whilst another can.

    This is completely not what I'm saying. Perhaps you've forgotten what you wrote:

    @ASheridan said:

    Either he created the accidents and engineered for you to be there, or it was all happenstance.

    You've set up two mutually exclusive scenarios and declared it impossible for there to be other scenarios. It's not that you or nonpartisan believe in one or the other, but that you've tried to rule out anything else as a possibility. In particular, that he was responsible for some, but not all of this (which is really many different options, depending on how you slice it up, of course).

    I was pointing out that if nonpartisan can say gods hand was in him/her being at the location of the accidents right after they happened that I too could say that god was also responsible for causing the accidents.  Nonpartisan said it was his/her belief that god didn't cause the accidents, just caused nonpartisan to be there. I was pointing out the fallacy in believing the one but not being open to the other. If a god was responsible for one, then equally likely is a god being responsible for the other; unless you're presuming to know the actions of a god and know differently?

     

    @boomzilla said:

    @ASheridan said:
    Ps, I've just argued my way out of your wet paper bag, but I've yet to see you explain any of this logically.

    Yes, we've established that you don't understand how to identify a logical fallacy.

    @ASheridan said:

    You just keep reiterating that I can't make assumptions while defending those who make assumptions that agree with your own viewpoint.

    No, that's not what I did at all. I merely pointed out that you created a false dichotomy.

    It's only false if you are yourself making assumptions about what a god can/cannot/would/wouldn't do.

    @boomzilla said:

    Look, you or anyone else could believe that one of your options is correct. There is no way to prove, via logic, that any such belief is correct or incorrect. But you incorrectly stated the range of possible beliefs, and I pointed that out. Now, you have also imagined that I have shared my belief on this topic.

    I did make the assumption of your belief, but now I assume I was wrong in that, sorry. As for the options being incorrect, I explained my logic that led to the conclusions. Sure, they are simplified, but I don't believe there is any flaw in that logical reasoning.


     



  • @ASheridan said:

    It's only false if you are yourself making assumptions about what a god can/cannot/would/wouldn't do.
     

    Your dichotomy is always false.

    Also, you and boomzy have been talking about different things and you only just now responded to what he said.



  • @dhromed said:

    Audiophiles believe that drawing green lines on your CDs improves the sound. Or that vinyl has infinite resolution.

    Some wine tasters believe they can identify which vineyard the grapes that went into the wine were made in. Some Chriopractors believe back adjustments can cure and/or prevent cancer. Over in the UK, the Queen Mum believes in the theory of homeopathy.

    Revelation 1: people believe things that are provably wrong ALL THE FUCKING TIME

    Revelation 2: you have the EXACT SAME BRAIN as the guy buying CD demagnetizers. Whatever faulty brain-wiring allows him to believe in that bullshit, you have too. The difference between you and him isn't "oh I'm logical but he believes weird shit", it's "oh I believe weird shit A and he believes weird shit B."

    The first step to enlightenment is to realize your brain does not work. Everything you know is wrong. Left is right, up is down, and short is long. And everything you used to think was so important doesn't really matter anymore because the simple fact remains that: everything you know is wrong.



  • @dhromed said:

    There's this door and I don't know what's behind it. You expect me to be open to the possibility that there's a cross-dressing minotaur behind it, ready to give me a fine chocolate-chip cookie (because it loves me), but I have absolutely no cause to think that. Thus I will not consider the option. Fucking up the wiring of a house, however, is a fine possibility, even if pride is keeping me from wanting to explore that avenue.

    Should it happen, though, I will reinvestigate what the hell that minotaur is doing there, obviously. But what you're asking of me is not reasonable.

    The reverse is also true, though. If you claim that the minotaur is not there, nonpartisan similarly has no cause to think that there's nothing there. Neither one of you knows what is behind the door.



  • @boog said:

    I think the question that folks like ASheridan and blakarino are trying to get across (and apparently failing, but not for a lack of effort) is why you can say with such certainty, with no evidence, that he put you in the right place at the right time?  Because it seems awfully convenient to believe one positive thing without evidence, but disbelieve one negative thing for the same reason.
     

    I don't lean toward that possibility because I believe in a benevolent God.  But I don't 100% discount the possibility that He caused the accident in order to help me.  That means that I have a huge base of power to control things in this world, moreso than anyone else, and I'm not comfortable with that possibility.  It doesn't mean it's not true though.

    So I'll explicitly state:  I don't disbelieve that it's a possibility.  I find it unlikely given my spiritual experiences, but I won't flat out dismiss it.

    @boog said:

    If it's because you choose to believe it, that's fine, go nuts, but please realize that how-you-feel shouldn't be enough to convince anyone that your belief holds water.

     I do believe I said [url=http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/p/25624/281425.aspx#281425]here[/url] that my experiences were my own and I didn't expect to be able to convince anyone.  And I'm fine with that.  I'm trying to explain my spiritual experiences here.  If someone chooses not to believe that God exists, well, I'm not making an effort to try to change that.  I'm no Bible-thumping, God-will-damn-you-to-hell preacher.  People are asking questions, asking why it couldn't be one way or another, why I'm biased toward believing it has to be God working in my life, etc.  I will say that I could be wrong.  These could all be convenient, amazing coincidences that occur in my life.  If that's the case and God doesn't exist, I'm still truly blessed with what has happened to me.

     



  • @dhromed said:

    So again, you're drawing an arbitrary line bretween "a little coincidence" and "a lot of coincidence", and claiming "The big coincidence cannot be. I do not have an explanation. This suggest to me God."

    This is false.

     

    Why isn't it possible that God helps me in some situations but not others?

    Let's flip this around.  Explain to me how you know that coincidences in your life are not God working in your life.

     @dhromed said:

    Well, that's called trust, and it can be tested, but you won't, and the reason you won't because it's disrespectful towards your wife. If the only reason you don't test it is because of this false superiority of "faith", then that makes you a bad person.

    Wow . . . it makes me a bad person that I have faith in my wife?  You're hard core.

    I believe in my wife.  I trust in my wife.  I have faith in my wife.

    I believe in God.  I trust in God.  I have faith in God.

    Explain to me the difference between the two sets of statements beyond the fact that one says "my wife" and the other says "God".

     @dhromed said:

    Spirituality is fine. 

    This "continuum of experiences", however is usually called "compound error". One false conclusion can't serve as a data point in conjunction with other false conclusions. Hey, these conclusions are pretty bad! But I have lots of them!

    Or the possibility exists that none of them are false conclusions and there is no compound error involved.  That is a possibility too.

     @dhromed said:

    I shouldn't have to believe. Real stuff is real regardless of what I believe. Either demonstrate it directly, or show me that there is reasonable ground for investigation. So far, nothing. A set of random shit coming together is pretty thin evidence. Is it not far more interesting and fulfilling to try and find out what could cause these unlikely combination of events you describe? Instead, you shrug and somehow conclude that it must be divine intervention. Way to go.

    Well, what is "real" is different for everyone.  My wife showed me a commercial the other day that brought her to tears.  I thought it was cute and touching, but nothing to get emotional over.  One critic will say that movie A is a fantastic piece of work because of factors 1, 2, and 3, and another movie critic, another expert in the field, will say that it sucked because of 4, 5, 6.  In other words, you have to see it for yourself to know how you'll feel about it.

    I experience God for myself.  I can explain to you what makes it real to me.  You can shoot it full of holes to make yourself feel better.  But it's my reality, not yours.  As I mentioned in one of my first posts, I'm not here to try to convince you.  If I'm wrong and there's no God, well, then indeed my life is just an amazing set of coincidences brought on by the natural workings of the world.   But if there is a God, then I can see Him working in my life.  I don't see it as giving up on anything, or stupidity, or ignorance.  There are things in this world I can't explain.  I would love to see explanations for them, really.  I'm quite interested in whether this Higgs-Boson "God" particle really exists.  The nature of God may even be completely different than what I think it is.  Or God may not exist.  But right now, I am a productive member of society, my children are well-adjusted individuals who get high praise from their teachers, and my life is good.  I don't see a problem with that.

     

     



  • @ASheridan said:

    I don't think stealing is OK, and we've already established that looking at content online whilst blocking ads surrounding the content isn't stealing.

    No, we haven't. You just keep asserting that it must not be stealing because you are doing it.

    @ASheridan said:

    You think Google is 'stealing' the content when it indexes your content and shows snippets of it in their search results?

    Strawman fail.

    @ASheridan said:

    Or are you one of those dumbfucks that thinks it's OK to steal my bandwidth?

    You are the dumbest piece of shit on Earth. Go back to Slashdot, troll.



  • @erikal said:

    Funnily enough this week has proven that derailing a thread into a pretty hefty discussion about religion is allowed to survive (while on other forums the thread would be locked, put in isolation and several people would be banned just to set an example), but apparently reviving a 7-month old thread is frowned upon.
     

    Does any thread survive without total derailement around here?


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @dargor17 said:

    Does any thread survive without total derailement around here?

    Thread evolution is typically very chaotic. Only very short threads stay near their initial conditions.



  • @erikal said:

    Funnily enough this week has proven that derailing a thread into a pretty hefty discussion about religion is allowed to survive (while on other forums the thread would be locked, put in isolation and several people would be banned just to set an example), but apparently reviving a 7-month old thread is frowned upon.

    Those other forums are stupid. And probably run by Muslims. Seriously, though, this forum has always been pretty laid-back about content. Rezzed threads are annoying as hell, though, because: 1) the discussion is done, people have moved on; 2) some of the people being replied to aren't even here any more; 3) people who rez threads almost never have anything useful to say. See the latest example: some Linux fanboy rezzed a bunch of very old threads just to post useless nonsense. Rezzed threads jump to the top of the forum which leads to confusion as some people don't realize a thread is long-dead.



  • @dargor17 said:

    @erikal said:

    Funnily enough this week has proven that derailing a thread into a pretty hefty discussion about religion is allowed to survive (while on other forums the thread would be locked, put in isolation and several people would be banned just to set an example), but apparently reviving a 7-month old thread is frowned upon.
     

    Does any thread survive without total derailement around here?

    You've been here awhile so you probably know the answer is "no". Which is one of the reasons I love this site. Most forums are over-moderated (Slashdot, reddit, etc.) and you end up with this horrible, static group-think. A good forum is one where people are constantly disagreeing--at least they're thinking. Those other forums also have the annoying tendency to have lots of people "talking over" each other rather than actually discussing with each other, usually by karma-whores who are just looking for their next fix.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    A good forum is one where people are constantly disagreeing

    No it's not. Where did you get that idea from? Completely false.



  • @Cassidy said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    A good forum is one where people are constantly disagreeing

    No it's not. Where did you get that idea from? Completely false.

    Ha ha, you fell into my trap!



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Those other forums are stupid.
     

    I can say dick here.

    In fact, I can say where I want to put it, but you know what the beauty of it is?

    I don't have to!

     

    :D :D :D D:



  • @nonpartisan said:

    @dhromed said:

    So again, you're drawing an arbitrary line bretween "a little coincidence" and "a lot of coincidence", and claiming "The big coincidence cannot be. I do not have an explanation. This suggest to me God."

    This is false.

     

    Why isn't it possible that God helps me in some situations but not others?

     

    I have a couple of questions:

    1) Do we have free will?

    My knowledge of the bible is very slight but I thought that one of the big things in it is the idea of free will: we can do what we like and are judged at the end.  If we didn't have free will (i.e. the ability to do 'bad' as well as 'good' things) then God could just makes us do the right thing the whole time and heaven would be full and hell empty.

    Part B of this question is if nonpartisan's prayers were answered during paramedic training such that he happened to be at a number of accidents in a short period of time, how does this not impinge on free will?  I'm arguing that either God manipulated things (the behaviour of those in the accident and/or nonpartisan's whereabouts) or He didn't.  (The If you believe these two options to be logically fallacious then please let me know why.)  If it's the former then we don't have free will and if it's the latter then in what way did He answer prayers?

    2) In a different post you said...

    @nonpartisan said:

    My experiences with Him fall into the category of "be careful what you wish for, you might get it."  If I pray to learn to be more patient, guess what?  I end up in situations that test my patience.

    My issue with this kind of thinking is twofold. 

    Firstly, when you ask to be more patient and then start looking at events in terms of 'how much they try my patience' then you're obviously going to see them in that way.  If you then say...

    "Hey, I asked to be more patient and I have been impatient at all.  God answered my prayers".  No events that tried your patience.
    or
    "Hey, I asked to be more patient and I have been had a small number of situations that test and improve my patience.  God has answered my prayers".  Small number events that tried your patience.
    or
    "Hey, I asked to be more patient and I have been had a large number of situations so that I can really test and improve my patience.  God has answered my prayers".  Large number events that tried your patience.

    If you see any result as answering your prayers then you'll obviously believe your prayers are always/often being answered.

    Secondly, if God created life, the universe and everything how can He not handle the law of unintended consequence.  This is God you're talking about not a monkey's paw.  When you were too busy and God cancelled a couple of your projects couldn't He just have eaisily said "This nonpartisan is a nice guy with a lovely wife and kids.  He's very faithful and does the right thing.  In order to free up more of his time I'll get him to buy a lottery ticket and win enough money to pay off his mortgage and work 3 days a week."  You'd still do the work which you clearly enjoy but would have more time with the wife and kids.

    *****

    On the subject of having faith in your wife.  People tend to have a default set of values that they assign to people*.  I believe people to be kind, honest, truthful, intelligent and interesting.  When I meet a new person then these are things I believe them to be in the absence of evidence to the contrary.  I have met idiots and liars, dullards and cheats but I didn't start out expecting them to be like that; their actions showed them to be what they are.  I expecteded my now-wife to be faithful when I met her.  Nothing she has ever done makes me think she has ever, or will ever, be uinfaithful.  I trust her because she has shown me to be trustworthy.  So when you say...

    *I'm saying this but I have no way of knowing if it's true or not.  Sounds plausible though.

     

     

     



  • @RTapeLoadingError said:

    I have a couple of questions:

    1) Do we have free will?

    My knowledge of the bible is very slight but I thought that one of the big things in it is the idea of free will: we can do what we like and are judged at the end.  If we didn't have free will (i.e. the ability to do 'bad' as well as 'good' things) then God could just makes us do the right thing the whole time and heaven would be full and hell empty.

    Part B of this question is if nonpartisan's prayers were answered during paramedic training such that he happened to be at a number of accidents in a short period of time, how does this not impinge on free will?  I'm arguing that either God manipulated things (the behaviour of those in the accident and/or nonpartisan's whereabouts) or He didn't.  (The If you believe these two options to be logically fallacious then please let me know why.)  If it's the former then we don't have free will and if it's the latter then in what way did He answer prayers?

    So do you believe if someone forces you to make a decision you have no free will? My boss is in a position of power over me and he constantly puts me in situations where I am forced to make a decision. But I can still still choose the course of action I want to take and therefore I would argue I still have free will. I think you can know someone well enough that you can put them in a situation where they are forced to make a decision and you know what decision they will make.  Just because I forced the situation and already know the outcome, doesn't mean they didnt still have free will to make the choice.

     Isn't that how all those awesome forum laws came to be and work?



  • @Peraninth said:

    @RTapeLoadingError said:

    I have a couple of questions:

    1) Do we have free will?

    My knowledge of the bible is very slight but I thought that one of the big things in it is the idea of free will: we can do what we like and are judged at the end.  If we didn't have free will (i.e. the ability to do 'bad' as well as 'good' things) then God could just makes us do the right thing the whole time and heaven would be full and hell empty.

    Part B of this question is if nonpartisan's prayers were answered during paramedic training such that he happened to be at a number of accidents in a short period of time, how does this not impinge on free will?  I'm arguing that either God manipulated things (the behaviour of those in the accident and/or nonpartisan's whereabouts) or He didn't.  (The If you believe these two options to be logically fallacious then please let me know why.)  If it's the former then we don't have free will and if it's the latter then in what way did He answer prayers?

    So do you believe if someone forces you to make a decision you have no free will? My boss is in a position of power over me and he constantly puts me in situations where I am forced to make a decision. But I can still still choose the course of action I want to take and therefore I would argue I still have free will. I think you can know someone well enough that you can put them in a situation where they are forced to make a decision and you know what decision they will make.  Just because I forced the situation and already know the outcome, doesn't mean they didnt still have free will to make the choice.

     Isn't that how all those awesome forum laws came to be and work?

     

    How does this answer my question?

     



  • @nonpartisan said:

    I don't lean toward that possibility because I believe in a benevolent God.
    Okay.  Why?

    @nonpartisan said:

    But I don't 100% discount the possibility...doesn't mean it's not true though...I don't disbelieve that it's a possibility...I won't flat out dismiss it.
    Yes yes, you already established that you understood it was possible.  But then you said that while you admit it was possible, you did not believe it was the case:

    @nonpartisan said:

    ...nor do I believe that He would do that for me.
    That's why was asking why you believe one thing but not another.  You answered that above (sort of).

    @nonpartisan said:

    I do believe I said here that...
    Yes yes, I saw that too.  And I appreciate the sentiment; it fits really well into my belief structure.  However, it was this bit that set me (and probably a few others) off:

    @nonpartisan said:

    ...the only real argument I can give would be:  what if you're wrong?
    I'm pretty sure that whatever part of that might be considered an argument is most definitely fallacious, which offends me as someone who thinks logically.  When you make a statement like that, you're practically begging for a bunch of jerks like me to call bullshit on you.


  • Trolleybus Mechanic

    @RTapeLoadingError said:

    How does this answer my question?
     

    dick



  • @boog said:

    @nonpartisan said:
    I don't lean toward that possibility because I believe in a benevolent God.
    Okay.  Why?
     

    Why do I believe that He is benevolent?  My experience with my faith and spirituality.  My upbringing.  The Bible as a reference -- whether you believe in Jesus or not, there's actually a lot of good advice in there.   Reasoning -- it makes no sense that our value structure in this world should be to be nice, helpful, and respectful if He is a wrathful God who is going to bring fire and brimstone down on everyone.

    @boog said:

    @nonpartisan said:

    But I don't 100% discount the possibility...doesn't mean it's not true though...I don't disbelieve that it's a possibility...I won't flat out dismiss it.
    Yes yes, you already established that you understood it was possible.  But then you said that while you admit it was possible, you did not believe it was the case:

    @nonpartisan said:

    ...nor do I believe that He would do that for me.
    That's why was asking why you believe one thing but not another.  You answered that above (sort of).

    I don't believe He caused the accidents because that doesn't fit in with my image of God.  If He did cause them, then I need to re-evaluate my model.  Such a re-evaluation could put a huge dent in my faith.  For further understanding I would need to pray about it.

    It's the same as if you had a parent (father or mother, doesn't matter) who was upstanding in the community, never even got a parking ticket, whose advice was always spot on, was reliable, easy to talk to, and the police came and knocked on your door one day and said he or she deliberately caused a rollover accident down the street.  Based on your image and experience of that person, would you believe it?  Wouldn't it take you some time to understand, to puzzle it out, try to figure out where your understanding was incorrect?

    @boog said:

    However, it was this bit that set me (and probably a few others) off:

    @nonpartisan said:

    ...the only real argument I can give would be:  what if you're wrong?
    I'm pretty sure that whatever part of that might be considered an argument is most definitely fallacious, which offends me as someone who thinks logically.  When you make a statement like that, you're practically begging for a bunch of jerks like me to call bullshit on you.

     

    I can't point down the street to the guy at the corner of SW 3rd and Ash and say "See over there?  He's God.  I can prove he's God because he's carrying a sceptre, has a long, white beard, has a golden aura about him, and has six angels all surrounding him."  In terms of physical evidence that would qualify as true, irrefutable proof to the most skeptical critic here on Earth, I have none.  I have my experiences, my faith, and my spirituality.  Who knows?  Maybe each of us has a personal God assigned to us and each and every God is different.  Maybe that's why we don't all mesh when it comes to faith.  Truth be told, if Jesus were to come back today I don't expect I would recognize Him.  Heck, not even the apostles recognized Him immediately after His resurrection.  My faith says that God exists in some form.  I believe the experiences that are described to us over the last several thousands years in various writings lean more toward the idea that God exists than that He doesn't.  If that's true, then that means there is a God in some form.  That means if you're an atheist and flat out don't believe in God, then it seems more likely to me your future afterlift existence may be . . . less favorable, shall we say . . . than if you believed while still on Earth.

    Again, I'm explaining my experiences.  If you've got an answer for the question "what if you're wrong", and if that answer satisfies you, then fine.  For me, my education and experiences indicate to me that God exists and I don't want to take that bet that He doesn't.  But if He doesn't, then there is no all-powerful entity to meet me after I die and the praying I've done hasn't done any good.  I'm no worse off at that point.  If I've worshipped an incorrect God, then as I said before, I've done the best I could with the information I had.  I would hope that He would have corrected me if I was worshipping incorrectly.  But if that's not the case, well, then I'll find out after I die.

     



  • @nonpartisan said:

    Reasoning -- it makes no sense that our value structure in this world should be to be nice, helpful, and respectful if He is a wrathful God who is going to bring fire and brimstone down on everyone.

    Wondermark did a series on "malthiesm" recently... have a read. (That comic and the next two. The last has a "extended version" also.)

    @nonpartisan said:

    For further understanding I would need to pray about it.

    See, this is one of the issues. Why do you assume you gain understanding from prayer? Or that the understanding you gain isn't simply the result of your own brain re-organizing its own memories with no external influence?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @nonpartisan said:
    Reasoning -- it makes no sense that our value structure in this world should be to be nice, helpful, and respectful if He is a wrathful God who is going to bring fire and brimstone down on everyone.

    Wondermark did a series on "malthiesm" recently... have a read. (That comic and the next two. The last has a "extended version" also.)

     

    Thanks for the link.  An interesting read for sure.  I've heard of the concepts of maltheism but never seen that name given to it.

    My frame of reference in this world is that I prefer to treat others as I want to be treated.  I want to be treated with respect and kindness.  I want others to help me when I am genuinely in need and I will respond in kind.   As much crap as goes on in the world that we hear about, my impression is that the negative things we hear about on the news is not truly representative of the state of the world today.  I wander down the street and exchange hellos with people.  I walk to the transit center and there are no drug deals going down.  I get on MAX and I don't get shot.  If there's truly evil going on around me every minute of my life, then I have got to be the luckiest son of a bitch that ever lived.  The last time someone broke into my car was back in 1996 when someone jimmied the trunk.  My house has never been burglarized.  I live in a small neighborhood where people do a good job looking out for each other.

    The idea of living in a world where God is against me and screwing with me would depress me to no end -- perhaps to the point of suicide.  What chance do I have against an omnipotent being that is trying to get me?  And someone asked earlier that if He was really trying to help ease my family problems, why didn't God just give me $1M and allow me to retire and stay home with my family.  Well, if God is trying to make things miserable for me as professed by a maltheist, why doesn't He just squash me like a bug and be done with it?  I expect I would hear that the maltheist God doesn't work like that.  And then I'd ask why?  And how do you know?  And I suspect I'd get the same kinds of answers that I'm giving when people ask me those questions.

    @blakeyrat said:

    @nonpartisan said:
    For further understanding I would need to pray about it.

    See, this is one of the issues. Why do you assume you gain understanding from prayer? Or that the understanding you gain isn't simply the result of your own brain re-organizing its own memories with no external influence?

    Simple.  I'm not smart enough to have come up with the kinds of insights and realizations that I've experienced.  And I know it.

     



  • @nonpartisan said:

    If there's truly evil going on around me every minute of my life, then I have got to be the luckiest son of a bitch that ever lived.

    The problem here is that you're watching the news. The news reports things that happen extremely rarely, that's pretty much the definition of news. The news is never going to run a story, "hey, look, things are actually pretty fucking great and running smoothly".

    What your brain is doing is saying, "wow, a news story about a rape" and using its power of confirmation bias and assuming that means that rapes are really common. But that's not the case; that's not how "news" works. Your brain is misleading you, as it usually does because it's an evil asshole.

    Oh and:

    @nonpartisan said:

    I get on MAX and I don't get shot.

    Seriously? You seriously expect you'll get shot every single time you get on MAX unless God protects you? This MAX? In Portland, Oregon!? Isn't Portland like the safest city in the fucking US? It's got to be close to the top of the list.

    I'm starting to think you're literally crazy.

    @nonpartisan said:

    Simple. I'm not smart enough to have come up with the kinds of insights and realizations that I've experienced.

    Why do you assume your "insights and realizations" are so smart? If one of them was, "I'm going to get shot every time I step into a MAX station", that's not smart at all, that's fucking bone-headedly stupid and demonstrates an extreme ignorance of the world.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    What your brain is doing is saying, "wow, a news story about a rape" and using its power of confirmation bias and assuming that means that rapes are really common. But that's not the case;

    Unfortunately not true if you live around dhromed...



  • @nonpartisan said:

    Well, if God is trying to make things miserable for me as professed by a maltheist, why doesn't He just squash me like a bug and be done with it?  I expect I would hear that the maltheist God doesn't work like that.  And then I'd ask why?  And how do you know?
     

    Thats why I'm not a maltheist.

    No mechanism as bullshit as the cosmos could be the product of any intelligent mind, benevolent, evil or apathetical.

    That still leaves open the option of being in a simulation. I know how bullshit our own experimental simulations can get. I've played Portal.

    @nonpartisan said:

    And I suspect I'd get the same kinds of answers that I'm giving when people ask me those questions.

    Yes!

     

    To be honest, I didn't expect this turn of the discussion. Mind if I consider it the interweb's first reasonably settled religious discourse?

     


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @dhromed said:

    Mind if I consider it the interweb's first reasonably settled religious discourse?

    CHOP



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    What your brain is doing is saying, "wow, a news story about a rape" and using its power of confirmation bias and assuming that means that rapes are really common. But that's not the case;

    Unfortunately not true if you live around dhromed...

     




  • @lettucemode said:

    Off topic, this is the most civil religious discussion I've ever encountered on the internet. Kudos!
     

    Truly, it is a miracle.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @nonpartisan said:
    If there's truly evil going on around me every minute of my life, then I have got to be the luckiest son of a bitch that ever lived.

    The problem here is that you're watching the news. The news reports things that happen extremely rarely, that's pretty much the definition of news. The news is never going to run a story, "hey, look, things are actually pretty fucking great and running smoothly".

    What your brain is doing is saying, "wow, a news story about a rape" and using its power of confirmation bias and assuming that means that rapes are really common. But that's not the case; that's not how "news" works. Your brain is misleading you, as it usually does because it's an evil asshole.

    Oh and:

    @nonpartisan said:

    I get on MAX and I don't get shot.

    Seriously? You seriously expect you'll get shot every single time you get on MAX unless God protects you? This MAX? In Portland, Oregon!? Isn't Portland like the safest city in the fucking US? It's got to be close to the top of the list.

    I'm starting to think you're literally crazy.

     

    Wow.  Way to take things out of context.  The contextual portion of my statement was:

    @nonpartisan (for context) said:

    As much crap as goes on in the world that we hear about, my impression is that the negative things we hear about on the news is not truly representative of the state of the world today.

    And then I listed several things that I do not expect to happen because my view of the world is much more positive than what one might figure from the news.  So no, I'm not waking up every morning praying "Dear God, please protect me from being shot on MAX as I travel to and from work today."

    And Portland being the safest city?  It may be, but that doesn't mean nothing happens around here. How about [url=http://www.kptv.com/story/17047900/portland-police-investigating-20th-gang-shooting-of-2012]this[/url].  Or [url=http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/02/portland_police_investigating_20.html]this[/url].  Or [url=http://www.portlandonline.com/police/pbnotify.cfm?action=ViewContent&content_id=2818]this[/url].  Or [url=http://www.koinlocal6.com/news/local/story/Shooting-follows-purse-snatching-near-SE-Portland/HUKsASBJtkmM32jD0j2l-Q.cspx]this[/url].  No, we're not like Philadelphia with the highest homicide rate in the nation, but that doesn't mean nothing's happening around here.

    Oh, but wait a minute . . . I shouldn't be concerned because a bunch of random shit happening means absolutely nothing.  It can all be explained by statistics.  Or something like that.

    Anyway, [url=http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/americas-safest-cities-2011.html] Portland doesn't even make Forbes' top 10 for last year[/url].  New York does though.  Doesn't make [url=http://www.businessinsider.com/safest-cities-in-america-2011-6?op=1]this list either[/url].

    @blakeyrat said:

    @nonpartisan said:
    Simple. I'm not smart enough to have come up with the kinds of insights and realizations that I've experienced.

    Why do you assume your "insights and realizations" are so smart? If one of them was, "I'm going to get shot every time I step into a MAX station", that's not smart at all, that's fucking bone-headedly stupid and demonstrates an extreme ignorance of the world.

    No, not realizations like "I'm not going to get shot walking to MAX."  Deeper issues . . . life . . . our assisted suicide law in Oregon . . . marriage . . . etc.  I've got a whole journal of stuff having to do with topics ranging from myself and how I work to the nature of the world and things in between.

     

     



  • @dhromed said:

    @nonpartisan said:

    Well, if God is trying to make things miserable for me as professed by a maltheist, why doesn't He just squash me like a bug and be done with it?  I expect I would hear that the maltheist God doesn't work like that.  And then I'd ask why?  And how do you know?
     

    Thats why I'm not a maltheist.

    No mechanism as bullshit as the cosmos could be the product of any intelligent mind, benevolent, evil or apathetical.

    That still leaves open the option of being in a simulation. I know how bullshit our own experimental simulations can get. I've played Portal.

    @nonpartisan said:

    And I suspect I'd get the same kinds of answers that I'm giving when people ask me those questions.

    Yes!

     

    To be honest, I didn't expect this turn of the discussion. Mind if I consider it the interweb's first reasonably settled religious discourse?

     

    It has been an entertaining, perhaps enlightening, discussion at times.  I still don't understand how anyone can think that God, in some form or another (whether you believe in a single God or multiple, whether you believe in any saviors/prophets that have come along, whether you believe that He inhabits people, or trees, or fish, or . . .) doesn't exist.  For me, that's inconceivable.  (Yes, that word means what I think it means.)

    But we shall need to agree to disagree, unless you want to disagree with that, then we'll disagree about agreeing to disagree, and . . .

    Anyway, it still remains . . . iDevices have no JavaScript debugger.

     


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    Over in the UK, the Queen Mum believes in the theory of homeopathy.
    Ohh. Look. More idiocy from Blakey.


    1. The Queen Mum's dead. I'm not sure she believes in anything much at the moment.
    2. You're thinking of Prince Charles who talks to plants, and sells expensive biscuits as well.



      @blakeyrat said:
      Revelation 1: people believe things that are provably wrong ALL THE FUCKING TIME
      Not sure if ironic post is merely ironic, or moronic.

  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @boomzilla said:

    @dargor17 said:
    Does any thread survive without total derailement around here?

    Thread evolution is typically very chaotic.

    There was I thinking it was intelligent design instead...



  •  Homeopathy is not in any way similiar to herbalism. One is the study of plants and their benefits and the other is the study of water and sugar tablets.



  • @nonpartisan said:

    Anyway, it still remains . . . iDevices have no JavaScript debugger.

    public static Miracle insertObviousJoke($praying2Deity)

    {

        returns  iOS_JavaScriptDebugger;

    }


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @PJH said:

    @boomzilla said:
    @dargor17 said:
    Does any thread survive without total derailement around here?

    Thread evolution is typically very chaotic.


    There was I thinking it was intelligent design instead...

    They're not mutually exclusive.



  • @PJH said:

    1) The Queen Mum's dead. I'm not sure she believes in anything much at the moment.

    What do you call that geezer on the throne then? Sorry, having discarded medieval concepts over two centuries ago, us Americans aren't up to the on the latest on oppressive monarchy terminology.

    @PJH said:

    2) You're thinking of Prince Charles who talks to plants, and sells expensive biscuits as well.

    Well, ok, that works for my point too, so just swap in Prince Charles and bam we're back where we started.

    @PJH said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    Revelation 1: people believe things that are provably wrong ALL THE FUCKING TIME
    Not sure if ironic post is merely ironic, or moronic.

    I never claimed I was exempt from the rule.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @PJH said:
    @boomzilla said:
    @dargor17 said:
    Does any thread survive without total derailement around here?

    Thread evolution is typically very chaotic.


    There was I thinking it was intelligent design instead...

    They're not mutually exclusive.

    No, it's just an absurd notion that anyone who's intelligent might design something by means of chaos.

    Then again, I've worked with a lot of software that was designed that way.



  • @nonpartisan said:

    It's the same as...
    No it's not.  Your analogy presumes that the benevolence is a given, that the subject's good standing has already been established and has gone unquestioned until now.  The point of my comment (and so many others') was "why believe idea A instead of idea B, when there is no evidence supporting either?"  Whereas your analogy asks "why believe conflicting idea B when I've had 'evidence' of idea A all my life?"  Not the same thing.  Not even kind of.

    @nonpartisan said:

    @boog said:
    @nonpartisan said:
    ...the only real argument I can give would be:  what if you're wrong?
    I'm pretty sure that whatever part of that might be considered an argument is most definitely fallacious, which offends me as someone who thinks logically.
    I can't point down the street...and say "See over there?  He's God..."  In terms of physical
    evidence that would qualify as true, irrefutable proof to the most
    skeptical critic here on Earth, I have none.
    I'm not asking for proof of anything; you missed the point.  I'm saying that "arguing" for your beliefs by saying "what if you're wrong" is bullshit and it pisses me off.

    @nonpartisan said:

    Again, I'm explaining my experiences.
    And again, I appreciate that.  There are a lot of unanswered questions in the universe, and it's fine if you feel the need to choose answers for yourself.  You're entitled to your beliefs, and I won't tell you to believe otherwise.  But please please don't try to explain how you arrived to your answer by applying "logic" or "reason".

    @nonpartisan said:

    If you've got an answer for the question "what if you're wrong", and if that answer satisfies you, then fine.
    My point is: I don't need one.



  • @nonpartisan said:

    But we shall need to agree to disagree, unless you want to disagree with that, then we'll disagree about agreeing to disagree, and . . .
    I disagree - you just don't end a 10-page iOS-javascript-debugger-derailed-to-ad-blocking-derailed-to-religion discussion without rounding it out to 500 comments.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @boog said:

    I'm not asking for proof of anything; you missed the point.  I'm saying that "arguing" for your beliefs by saying "what if you're wrong" is bullshit and it pisses me off.

    Good god, but this is pretty much what you're doing! Stop being an asshole atheist, please. This site is for asshole IT people!



  • @boomzilla said:

    @boog said:
    I'm not asking for proof of anything; you missed the point.  I'm saying that "arguing" for your beliefs by saying "what if you're wrong" is bullshit and it pisses me off.
    Good god, but this is pretty much what you're doing!
    No it isn't.  Not once did I ask him to consider if he was wrong.

    @boomzilla said:

    Stop being an asshole atheist, please.
    I'm not an atheist.



  • @boog said:

    I'm not an atheist.
     

    Well, then stop being an asshole.

    5 posts to go.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @boog said:

    @boomzilla said:
    @boog said:
    I'm not asking for proof of anything; you missed the point.  I'm saying that "arguing" for your beliefs by saying "what if you're wrong" is bullshit and it pisses me off.

    Good god, but this is pretty much what you're doing!

    No it isn't.  Not once did I ask him to consider if he was wrong.

    You said this:
    @boog said:

    I think the question that folks like ASheridan and blakarino are trying to get across (and apparently failing, but not for a lack of effort) is why you can say with such certainty, with no evidence, that he put you in the right place at the right time? Because it seems awfully convenient to believe one positive thing without evidence, but disbelieve one negative thing for the same reason.

    Which is pretty much the same thing, except more passively aggressive.

    @boog said:

    @boomzilla said:
    Stop being an asshole atheist, please.

    I'm not an atheist.

    Fair enough. I should have said, "Stop acting like an asshole atheist, please. This site is for acting like an asshole IT person!"



  • @boog said:

    No it's not.  Your analogy presumes that the benevolence is a given, that the subject's good standing has already been established and has gone unquestioned until now.  The point of my comment (and so many others') was "why believe idea A instead of idea B, when there is no evidence supporting either?"  Whereas your analogy asks "why believe conflicting idea B when I've had 'evidence' of idea A all my life?"  Not the same thing.  Not even kind of.
     

    Then I don't know what else to say.  My default configuration when meeting someone new is that he or she is going to be a kind, compassionate, helpful human being.  Why do I believe that way?  I've been brought up to  believe in the good in people. You're asking me why I presume benevolence . . . well, I presume benevolence in people as the default and let them prove otherwise.  I don't see why, if I believe in God, to not presume a benevolent God until I get experience to the contrary.

    @boog said:

    I'm not asking for proof of anything; you missed the point.  I'm saying that "arguing" for your beliefs by saying "what if you're wrong" is bullshit and it pisses me off.

    Then I think you're reading too much into the question.  The idea that I would believe there is no God, die, and find out I was wrong scares the snot out of me.  That's not a basis for why I believe, but the possibility is uncomfortable to me.  It's just a question.  If you hear "What if you're wrong?" and you say "I don't give a flying fuck", well, then fine.@boog said:

    @nonpartisan said:
    If you've got an answer for the question "what if you're wrong", and if that answer satisfies you, then fine.
    My point is: I don't need one.

    Question:  "What if you're wrong?"

    Answer:  "I don't need to answer that."

    Problem solved.

     

     



  • @boomzilla said:

    You said this: @boog said:
    I think the question that folks like ASheridan and blakarino are trying to get across (and apparently failing, but not for a lack of effort) is why you can say with such certainty, with no evidence, that he put you in the right place at the right time? Because it seems awfully convenient to believe one positive thing without evidence, but disbelieve one negative thing for the same reason.

    Which is pretty much the same thing, except more passively aggressive.

    That's awfully awkward logic.  I'd like to highlight a couple differences between arguing by asking "what if you're wrong?" and the quote you've shown above:

    1. I wasn't arguing for any belief.  That you might think I was would be nothing more than a lousy assumption on your part.
    2. I was suggesting the notion that
      nonpartisan's faith is merely a matter of personal preference by questioning his reasoning: why believe one unproven idea but not another - that's not the same as asking him to consider the consequences of his choice in light of the opposition being true.

    But perhaps you could elaborate on how the two comments were "pretty much the same thing".

    @boomzilla said:

    I should have said, "Stop acting like an asshole atheist, please.
    Again, I'm not acting like an atheist.  Seriously, at which point did I deny the existence of a god?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    ... buying CD demagnetizers.

    What a silly product.  However, I've saved TONS of money on rewinding fees since I got my DVD Rewinder.



  •  Sorry, but your god was a bit of a bastard, not what I'd call benevolent.

    He damned humanity when Adam and Eve ate the apple in the garden. Sure they betrayed his trust, but, overreaction much?!

    Then he got pissed off again and killed nearly everyone in the flood of 40 days and nights. Don't get me started on how by doing this he basically forced Noah's family to inbreed in order to continue the human population.

    Then there are some lovely choice quotes from various bits of the bible:

    Nahum 1.2

    The LORD is a jealous and avenging God; the LORD takes vengeance and is filled with wrath. The LORD takes vengeance on his foes and maintains his wrath against his enemies. 

    There's a whole list of them here http://thinkexist.com/quotes/with/keyword/vengeance/3.html 

    That first one about washing his feet in the blood of the wicked, sorry, but that just doesn't seem like a nice, friendly thing to do, irrespective of whose blood it actually is.


Log in to reply