Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Okay, what have you done with LearnMe??? Come clean, you poseur!
I've sometimes felt we have two LearnMe's taking turns at the computer..
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
When is it that religion doesn't want to interfere in education, law, politics and science?
When it is told not to by the government, because if they don't, the people will not vote for them.
So it's the People that count here. They, the browsers, lurkers and peanut gallery, are the ones that have to be talked to, not a bunch of theists who deny what's actually in their own Bible if it doesn't fit what they want to believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Nope. With all due respect, quite the opposite...
Revisit comment #127, #152...
Looked at them. I answered the point there that you repeated here. The analogy works as well as any other and makes an effective apologetic.
Does it make the theist see reason? Better arguments than the Santa analogy don't. I have already answered these points.
Overall effectiveness? We shall have to see. The last figures suggested the overall apologetic was doing well enough and the Santa analogy is a small cog in that larger wheel. Religion has been rolled back in europe; no reason why it shouldn't work in the US - if they can disentangle religion from politics.
I have already answered this point and if others want to use other analogies, they can. If they think it is vulnerable to Theist apologists comparing it to Cosmic -God, they they haven't thought the analogy through. White -beard -dude is merely a human 'Omni'. Cosmic Santa is the Real One. The poor mundane dears were only infants and so I fed them warm milk and cookies, but when they grow up, a glass of sherry and pork pies.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-06-2021 at 02:24 AM..
" ... The Archdiocese of New Orleans last week released a statement advising Catholics that the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is “morally compromised as it uses the abortion-derived cell line in development and production of the vaccine as well as the testing,” and advising them to opt for a Pfizer Inc. or Moderna Inc. vaccine, if possible. ..."
You can argue it, but at least be clear about it.
Looks to me like the proverbial difference that makes no difference. Or on 2nd thoughts, No, you are right. Seems the Catholics are not against the vaccine per se but only one that is not in accordance with their Doctrines. It's as well that there are alternatives, otherwise it would be a different matter - life or doctrine?
Thanks for clarifying that.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-06-2021 at 03:14 AM..
Looks to me like the proverbial difference that makes no difference. Or on 2nd thoughts, No, you are right. Seems the Catholics are not against the vaccine per se but only one that is not in accordance with their Doctrines. It's as well that there are alternatives, otherwise it would be a different matter - life or doctrine?
Thanks for clarifying that.
But to some people saying "we will accept the consequences of not supporting a company we feel is killing babies." is ok by me. If they say it like, I am ok with it.
Me and you, we don't care, get the vaccine ...please.
I think that there are individual religionists who understand this and do wish to completely separate church and state. But as a "body", there is still too much desire and effort on the part of religion to interfere.
The latest example I have seen is the Catholic hierarchy advising Catholic that it is immoral to take the J&J covid vaccine. In this particular case there happens to be a choice of vaccines (at least for some), but it's apparently okay to "block" the recovery of the nation and the world because of one religious body's moral principles. People will die because of that.
This interference by churches in the "national business" has bothered me for half a century now. And it began the day that I went to mass and our catholic priest told us in our homily that we couldn't vote for Nelson Rockefeller because of his policy on abortion. Not only did I vote for Nelson Rockefeller, but when the priest said that I got up and walked out of the mass; unfortunately, the rest of the sheep didn't.
Understand how significantly religion played a part in politics going back to when the two were for the most part inseparable, and is it any wonder that religion and politics remain bedfellows still to this day?
I've sometimes felt we have two LearnMe's taking turns at the computer..
When it is told not to by the government, because if they don't, the people will not vote for them.
So it's the People that count here. They, the browsers, lurkers and peanut gallery, are the ones that have to be talked to, not a bunch of theists who deny what's actually in their own Bible if it doesn't fit what they want to believe.
Looked at them. I answered the point there that you repeated here. The analogy works as well as any other and makes an effective apologetic.
Does it make the theist see reason? Better arguments than the Santa analogy don't. I have already answered these points.
Overall effectiveness? We shall have to see. The last figures suggested the overall apologetic was doing well enough and the Santa analogy is a small cog in that larger wheel. Religion has been rolled back in europe; no reason why it shouldn't work in the US - if they can disentangle religion from politics.
I have already answered this point and if others want to use other analogies, they can. If they think it is vulnerable to Theist apologists comparing it to Cosmic -God, they they haven't thought the analogy through. White -beard -dude is merely a human 'Omni'. Cosmic Santa is the Real One. The poor mundane dears were only infants and so I fed them warm milk and cookies, but when they grow up, a glass of sherry and pork pies.
Only one me, but you should please note when you suspect contradiction. Meanwhile, I think it has more to do with what I explained in my comment #214, and/or not fully understanding what I am trying to explain. I do my best, but even with simple statements, comments, explanations, there always seems to be some confusion by someone about something. Maybe my doing, but I can't tell if no one lets me know where or how I'm not making sense to them.
Something like how some people can read your comments and claim its all "gobbledygook" while I read and understand something quite other than gobbledygook. Takes a bit of effort to fully understand where a person is coming from in any case.
You looked at the comments I redirected you to read again, but apparently you are not accepting the simple point of confusion that you keep repeating. You wrote, "You've confused the validity of an argument (in this case the validity of the santa analogy) with the effectiveness of it is persuading the other side."
Not so. In fact, the opposite. I am focused on the effectiveness of using such an analogy, not the validity of the analogy. You keep blurring or blending the two together when actually you are simply more inclined to consider the validity rather than the effectiveness.
Or so it seems to me I am understanding you quite clearly on the other hand. You think the analogy is good as any. That just may be from a validity standpoint. I haven't found or heard a better one yet. So yes. Perhaps so, but my focus has been and remains on the question of whether it works to "move the needle" with respect to changing anyone's mind about the existence of God.
All appearances are that the analogy is not effective along those lines, at all. That's all...
But to some people saying "we will accept the consequences of not supporting a company we feel is killing babies." is ok by me. If they say it like, I am ok with it.
Me and you, we don't care, get the vaccine ...please.
Only one me, but you should please note when you suspect contradiction. Meanwhile, I think it has more to do with what I explained in my comment #214, and/or not fully understanding what I am trying to explain. I do my best, but even with simple statements, comments, explanations, there always seems to be some confusion by someone about something. Maybe my doing, but I can't tell if no one lets me know where or how I'm not making sense to them.
Something like how some people can read your comments and claim its all "gobbledygook" while I read and understand something quite other than gobbledygook. Takes a bit of effort to fully understand where a person is coming from in any case.
You looked at the comments I redirected you to read again, but apparently you are not accepting the simple point of confusion that you keep repeating. You wrote, "You've confused the validity of an argument (in this case the validity of the santa analogy) with the effectiveness of it is persuading the other side."
Not so. In fact, the opposite. I am focused on the effectiveness of using such an analogy, not the validity of the analogy. You keep blurring or blending the two together when actually you are simply more inclined to consider the validity rather than the effectiveness.
Or so it seems to me I am understanding you quite clearly on the other hand. You think the analogy is good as any. That just may be from a validity standpoint. I haven't found or heard a better one yet. So yes. Perhaps so, but my focus has been and remains on the question of whether it works to "move the needle" with respect to changing anyone's mind about the existence of God.
All appearances are that the analogy is not effective along those lines, at all. That's all...
I'm saying that the effectiveness of the the analogy in a discussion and the effectiveness of the argument as a whole are two different things and it seems silly to me to talk about how many people the Santa analogy will persuade. It's the whole argument, not one analogy.
I'm saying that the effectiveness of the the analogy in a discussion and the effectiveness of the argument as a whole are two different things and it seems silly to me to talk about how many people the Santa analogy will persuade. It's the whole argument, not one analogy.
True, but as commonly used as the Santa analogy tends to be, it simply draws my attention and scrutiny. Not as the end all "magic bullet" when it comes to making the case that atheists tend to make, but as a part of that effort, it just got me to thinking if it works better than it doesn't. In particular, again, because it is somewhat insulting, I tend to think it "backfires" more than it helps the argument, with believers.
So what is a better analogy that better helps justify atheism without insulting people who are religious?
Believing in God is something like believing in magic. We all know how easy is it for magicians to fool us into believing magical things can actually happen...
Ok. I think it works fine and I have nothing to show me that it doesn't. The objections the theists raise don't hold up. The objections atheists raise...as I say, if they can find an analogy that works better, I'll use it. Santa is an iconic figure used culturally all over the world, and believed by millions - up to about age 8.
Jesusgod is the same, believed by millions - just up to the time they get rational.
It doesn't do anything to dissuade me from using it that theist apologists hate it so much.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've sometimes felt we have two LearnMe's taking turns at the computer..
Better arguments than the Santa analogy don't. I have already answered these points.
