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.
... the apparent acceptance of any sorta god will be grabbed with both hands and the attaching of all manner of faith -baggage can be done at protracted leisure.
Theists know that the a priori acceptance of anything that can be labelled 'God' changes the whole nature of debate and achieves the holy grail oif Theist apologetics - shifting the burden of proof.
They may think it successfully shifts the burden of proof but IMO it does not such thing. It simply derails the discussion because they THINK it does.
Redefining god as the universe, nature, or existence only proves the existence of the universe, nature or existence. You can attach the word "god" or "bucket" or "Spot" to it in an attempt to contrive a proof of something you claim to be synonymous ... but you haven't actually proven anything. Even if someone considers it proof, it is not proof of biblegod or the Abrahamic god, which is what a fundamentalist borrowing deist / pantheist / panentheist arguments is really after. It avails nothing in that regard.
They may think it successfully shifts the burden of proof but IMO it does not such thing. It simply derails the discussion because they THINK it does.
I don't think they THINK it does.
I think they KNOW it does not.
But a little thing called cognitive dissonance simple does what it does so often.
It makes otherwise smart and rational people behave pretty friken irrationally.
Nope. I have seen it before, many times. though of course, my interpretation could be wrong.
I don't see how it would be wrong, it's simply an observation. It happens more often than not in my experience.
Does that mean that every assertion of deist-y sorta-god is a covert attempt to smuggle in something more specific? No. But it is sufficient reason to be wary of it.
Again in my experience, even some liberal theists, while holding no specific beliefs and remaining loosely attached to what beliefs they have, will sometimes rather adamantly draw the line by insisting there must be reverence, deference, respect and a free pass in discussion or debate for at least the existence of some sort of supreme being, despite them offering no empirical evidence or logical justification for it.
I can count on one hand the number of theists I've encountered here who are willing to simply say, I believe X Y and Z, can't prove it, my beliefs are my right but based on various subjective considerations and preferences and no more objectively valid than any other belief. Few will actually own that. Once they do, I have zero quarrel with them. Or they with me.
... the apparent acceptance of any sorta god will be grabbed with both hands and the attaching of all manner of faith -baggage can be done at protracted leisure.
No it won't. You just made that up.
Nope. I have seen it before, many times.
"Many times" isn't "will be". "Will be" implies that it always happens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
though of course, my interpretation could be wrong.
Rather, the fast and loose manner with which you switch goal posts from a categorical statement to a conditional statement is what's wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
It happens more often than not in my experience.
Mine too, but that's why it is all the more important to note that it isn't a reflection of how it is, but rather is a reflection of how some people choose to color beyond the lines. It is a behavior problem with some people, not a problem with the concept itself.
I don't see how it would be wrong, it's simply an observation. It happens more often than not in my experience.
Does that mean that every assertion of deist-y sorta-god is a covert attempt to smuggle in something more specific? No. But it is sufficient reason to be wary of it.
Again in my experience, even some liberal theists, while holding no specific beliefs and remaining loosely attached to what beliefs they have, will sometimes rather adamantly draw the line by insisting there must be reverence, deference, respect and a free pass in discussion or debate for at least the existence of some sort of supreme being, despite them offering no empirical evidence or logical justification for it.
I can count on one hand the number of theists I've encountered here who are willing to simply say, I believe X Y and Z, can't prove it, my beliefs are my right but based on various subjective considerations and preferences and no more objectively valid than any other belief. Few will actually own that. Once they do, I have zero quarrel with them. Or they with me.
Yes. That's fair enough. I can't be sure, but I can wary.
Quote:
:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA though of course, my interpretation could be wrong.
Buu
Quote:
Rather, the fast and loose manner with which you switch goal posts from a categorical statement to a conditional statement is what's wrong.
Not shifting goal -posts. Just qualifying where the goal -posts were. As Mordant said. If they do it, they are doing it. Those that don't do it are outside the goalposts. Why they are doing it is what I am arguing. If there is some other reason than to get any kind of god accepted and then use that as the well -known springboard to Biblegod - please tell us what it is.
Cool. Mutual understand is better than quarrelling.
So the position is that the burden of proof in on those making the claim that a god exists. Any sorta god will do as a starting point for what some thest apologetics use as a springboard to a particular god. As Vizio did recently when Freak "conceded" a god - but which god? Great says Vizio. So long as a god of some kind is accepted.. he is well content. because (I strongly suggest) the debate is half won if a god of some sort is accepted as real without any good evidence needing to be presented, but just pounding on with the false arguments of kalam, I/D, First cause and you don't even need the rhetorical swindle of labelling Everything "God" in order to get the mere word accepted as a springboard of the leap of faith.
Believe me, let 'em get an a priori god and they will be wagging the Bible at you before you can oil the wheels on the goalposts. And as soon as you protest you will find that you have been saddled with the burden of proof - of disproving a god that has now been 'accepted'.
Sortagod cannot be allowed to pass through inattention or being worn down with constant nagging, because it hands theism the logical default for free. Without their having to produce anything but fallacious arguments.
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.