Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Why Did God Kill 2 Dozen Kids in Oklahoma USA with a Tornado?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 76-100 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Posted on 21 May 2013 22:44:36 BDT
The anthropic principle, the argument from religious experience, the cosmological argument, the trancendental argument, the ontological argument, the teleological argument, the argument from aestethic experience and the axiological argument. Each separately is intriguing; cumulatively they form a chain of circumstantial evidence which makes it, at the very least, unreasonable to the point of psychosis to criticize others for believing. Whatever your reasons for not believing, you need to face up to the fact that lack of evidence is not one of them.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 May 2013 22:47:44 BDT
Henry James says:
That "sounds" sensible, Eggball, cuz a all yer fancy woids,
but actually
it makes no sense whatsoever.
But U R eloquent.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 May 2013 23:03:54 BDT
AJ Murray says:
-"The anthropic principle, the argument from religious experience, the cosmological argument, the trancendental argument, the ontological argument, the teleological argument, the argument from aestethic experience and the axiological argument. Each separately is intriguing; cumulatively they form a chain of circumstantial evidence which makes it, at the very least, unreasonable to the point of psychosis to criticize others for believing."

Argument is not evidence, and you ignore the fact that individually these arguments fail in their purpose so cumulatively what you have is a heap of fail.

-"Whatever your reasons for not believing, you need to face up to the fact that lack of evidence is not one of them."

Not so, lack of evidence, lack of coherent logic, lack of anything resembling reasoning and the fact that coherent explanations for phenomena are available that don't require a deity of any form.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 May 2013 23:06:10 BDT
O.Binladen says:
"cumulatively they form a chain of circumstantial evidence which makes it, at the very least, unreasonable to the point of psychosis to criticize others for believing."

That sounds very clever, but if you read it often enough all you'll see is...

"the emperor has no clothes"

I simply find fideism entirely without merit, and no amount of "circumstantial" evidence is going to surmount that valid objection.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 May 2013 23:08:02 BDT
Henry James says:
eggman
in case you missed it, AJ's paragraph here summarizes why your post, in the words of one of America's great writers, "made no sense at all."

(aj's quote) lack of evidence, lack of coherent logic, lack of anything resembling reasoning and the fact that coherent explanations for phenomena are available that don't require a deity of any form.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 May 2013 23:13:28 BDT
O.Binladen says:
Very true AJ. I also find it bizarre that some theists think it's ok to say why they believe, but get fairly chippy when an Atheist points out the flaws in the reasoning, as if we should stand politely mute, paying due deference to an irrational delusion, just because it's genuinely and strongly felt.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 May 2013 23:31:20 BDT
AJ Murray says:
This point has been made previously; the fact is that the arguments he mentions are not the actual reasons for holding to Christian beliefs. The source of all Christians beliefs are scripture, that has primacy, and appears before any ad hoc justifications are floated. If scripture is unconvincing, then you won't joining Jesus' sunbeam brigade anytime soon.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 May 2013 05:40:47 BDT
light says:
richard,

"you will find that the people are exactly where they wanted to be at the time they wanted to be there...."

People, especially children, are where they are because of their parents choices and rules.....in general people tend to stay close to where they grew up. The children who were killed by the tornado had no choice to be where they were because at that time of the day the law says that it is school time.

I would like to know why there wasn't a storm cellar for the children to hide in during the tornado. Everyone knows that Oklahoma, Texas and Kansas have many tornadoes, so why wasn't safety measures taken to save their lives?

"it is the Tornado that, for them, is in the wrong place at the wrong time."

Tornadoes happen when the conditions are right, they don't go by time or place.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 May 2013 08:22:38 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Eggball, very well expressed. Totally incorrect of course, but even idiocy sounds better when it is couched in an erudite way.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 May 2013 08:24:20 BDT
C. A. Small says:
AJ- beautifully put. I do not think I have seen it better expressed.

"Not so, lack of evidence, lack of coherent logic, lack of anything resembling reasoning and the fact that coherent explanations for phenomena are available that don't require a deity of any form"

Marvellous.

Cheers, Clive.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 May 2013 08:55:58 BDT
Dan Fante says:
No, that's the devil.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 May 2013 09:32:04 BDT
Bellatori says:
According to you...yes... its just that you tend to overlook all the bad that he is also therefore responsible for...

Occam's Broom I heard this called this morning!

In reply to an earlier post on 22 May 2013 09:39:46 BDT
G. Heron says:
Eggball

"The anthropic principle, the argument from religious experience, the cosmological argument, the trancendental argument, the ontological argument, the teleological argument, the argument from aestethic experience and the axiological argument. Each separately is intriguing; cumulatively they form a chain of circumstantial evidence which makes it, at the very least, unreasonable to the point of psychosis to criticize others for believing. Whatever your reasons for not believing, you need to face up to the fact that lack of evidence is not one of them. "

Lack of evidence is exactly the reason for not believing . You list a series of arguments each unconvincing and which cumulatively form a pile of unconvincing arguments.

Posted on 22 May 2013 09:43:20 BDT
Dan Fante says:
Did everyone hear about this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50147264n

I know the loss of life and destruction has been terrible but at least this story had a happy ending.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 May 2013 09:43:55 BDT
Bellatori says:
That would have been exactly my reply... lots of bad and failed arguments do not add up to one good argument though many seem to think, wrongly, that they do.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 May 2013 10:31:15 BDT
Last edited by the author on 22 May 2013 10:32:48 BDT
O.Binladen says:
All very edifying, but hypothetically speaking, if theists claims were true, a being with unlimited knowledge and power stood idly by and let it happen. Try asking yourself if you had known it was going to happen, and had unlimited power whether you would have intervened, it's a no brainer for a being that is also touted as omnibenevolent.

Posted on 22 May 2013 11:27:57 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 22 May 2013 11:32:55 BDT
Dan Fante says:
A rather verbose way of not saying much and chucking the toys out the pram.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 May 2013 11:35:53 BDT
G. Heron says:
Eggball

The arguments can only support each other if each is able to stand up on its own, none of them do.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 May 2013 11:37:08 BDT
Last edited by the author on 23 May 2013 11:28:54 BDT
O.Binladen says:
That would rather depend whether the vocabulary was validating the point, or as in your post, where it was the emperors illusory clothes. "Almost every criminal", if ever a stat was plucked out of thin air without evidence then I'd be prepared to bet that was one. Of course the claims against those criminals was not a metaphysical one either, so the burden of proof need not be so high, something else you seem to have ignored. Ah we've left obfuscation using big words for petty name calling. It's already been pointed out to you by more than one poster that each piece of circumstantial evidence you gave didn't corroborate the others, they added up to several unrelated arguments, which you claimed spuriously as evidence. You end with more name calling, and the only one sneering at anyone so far is you. People are sneering at your post, because it was poorly thought out.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 May 2013 11:40:03 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"And for the record, almost every criminal in every jail in Europe and America is there on circumstantial evidence, which any court will accept as being just as valid as direct evidence."
That's just wrong.

"What makes circumstantial evidence trustworthy is the fact that each piece of it reinforces what has gone before, so while any ONE piece might be explained away, the cumulative total is persuasive. "
Where's 'Tom M' when you need him when there is a real opportunity to shout "logical positivist" at someone.

"I shouldn't have to explain this to people who make a piety of sneering at others; you're supposed to be smart enough to work it out for yourselves - try acting like it."
So first we're bad for acting all intellectually superior then we're told to act like we can work it out for ourselves. Something doesn't add up here.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 May 2013 12:08:44 BDT
C. A. Small says:
That would be "I'm right so yah boo sucks"- would you like me to give you teddy back now?

In reply to an earlier post on 22 May 2013 12:35:38 BDT
AJ Murray says:
-"I see our village atheists are in democratic mood today; no big words, no erudite philosophy because that's just obfuscation, right? It is probably too much to hope for the same attitude to prevail when they're trotting out phrases like "phyleic gradualism" and "punctuated equilibrium" on those days when it suits their stipe to be intellectually superior."

I take it that like many Christians you have a problem with evolution?

-"And for the record, almost every criminal in every jail in Europe and America is there on circumstantial evidence, which any court will accept as being just as valid as direct evidence."

Yes, but try securing a conviction based upon *no* evidence and nothing more than a fallacious argument. You will find that the courts will reject it out of hand.

"It's pretty clear that none of the amateur atheists on this forum is familiar with the distinction or the identifying charcacteristics of each form. What makes circumstantial evidence trustworthy is the fact that each piece of it reinforces what has gone before, so while any ONE piece might be explained away, the cumulative total is persuasive."

You've not given any evidence so far, just a list of arguments that are flawed and don't support each other.

-"I shouldn't have to explain this to people who make a piety of sneering at others; you're supposed to be smart enough to work it out for yourselves - try acting like it."

You appear to be confused about the difference between evidence and argument.

Posted on 22 May 2013 13:55:31 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 22 May 2013 13:58:19 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Or we could do as theists do, and lie a lot?
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  66
Total posts:  1102
Initial post:  21 May 2013
Latest post:  2 Sep 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions