Sorry to jump in. Three pages and it started yesterday! Dear oh dear. Crucifixion? Yes? First on the right. One cross each please.
I don't hang about much in the types of threads Susan likes, but every now and then I will post and then watch as an interesting topic goes off the rails. Then I get bored and go back to yakking about politics. Much more fun.
I like Susan Doris. I reckon she's great. I'm glad she's part of our community.
Thank you for saying - much appreciated.
The post came out with a twice-quoted quote from you - I must find out why I seem to get more than I need in the edit area - something to do with multiple quotes I think.
Yes, my lack of belief is an essential part of me while belief is that of most members here. However, it is not rigid - that would be unreasonable, but what do you think should change my mind?
SusanDoris, I wonder if you approach discussions expecting people to be wanting to change your mind. Whereas in reality, people do not come to the Ship with the intention of converting people (there are plenty of religious groups that do have this intention, but not here). People are quite happy for you to believe what you believe. You are the one wanting to discuss it, wanting people to prove to you, whereas people feel no need to prove anything to you, because people generally accept that faith is not something that can be proved.
People seem happy to discuss their own faith and experiences with you, as you claim to be curious about different people, but then it is frustrating when people share their experiences in good faith, not trying to convert you but simply sharing, and you just say ‘Yeah, but have you considered you might be wrong?’ As I said to you in the Images thread, of course people have considered this. People come to their faith through a whole process, of many thoughts and questions and doubts. No one is obliged to convince you that their personal experience is objective fact - no one is even trying to do this.
That understanding of the nature of historical ‘facts’ seems basic to me, and I believe the resurrection to have been a historical fact. In the light of that understanding, your call for ‘one fact’ seems to me to be either almost incredibly naive, or alternatively disingenuous.
Okay, but I wonder why you would accept the beliefs of people two thousand years ago more than the objective * evidence we have today?
*If |I could do tiny fonts to show I was whispering the word, I would have put this word in such a font!
Because, as people have been trying to get you to understand since whenever, faith is not the same as fact. Science is not the same as poetry. Stories can be uplifting and useful even when the details are unproven by science.
I have never said otherwise. Story-telling and the creative arts are essential for the human species.
I would contest that, Mr Cheesy. While I really like the analogy of poetry and science, I don’t think SusanDoris is like a whining child. I don’t think she whines at all. I’d say she is more like a curious child who keeps asking why. Which I guess I have quite a bit of patience with, as the same could be said about me. Though I really do whine sometimes too! I don’t see SusanDoris whining, ever.
I sometimes feel as if I ought to sort of apologise for being cheerful! I just tend to bounce back up from even severe set-backs, but not before I have taken them in and absorbed them realistically. 'You're always so cheerful,' people say. 'It's just my genetic make-up,' say I.
I would contest that, Mr Cheesy. While I really like the analogy of poetry and science, I don’t think SusanDoris is like a whining child. I don’t think she whines at all. I’d say she is more like a curious child who keeps asking why. Which I guess I have quite a bit of patience with, as the same could be said about me. Though I really do whine sometimes too! I don’t see SusanDoris whining, ever.
I sometimes feel as if I ought to sort of apologise for being cheerful! I just tend to bounce back up from even severe set-backs, but not before I have taken them in and absorbed them realistically. 'You're always so cheerful,' people say. 'It's just my genetic make-up,' say I.
Nah, never apologise for being who you are. It’s good to have that sort of resilience anyway, and especially as you get older, I think, as many lose their resilience.
SusanDoris - something occurs to me. Have you ever created a Purgatory thread specifically about ‘Can/should God be scientifically proven?’ I think it’s a fair question to ask - I know quite a few people who ask it, including atheists, agnostics and religious people. Then people could discuss this in detail. You could get more of a sense where people are coming from, and you could also express very clearly that you personally would require some phyical, tangible evidence.
Not that specific question, no, but I think the 'What do theologians know, really know, about God? might be considered close enough.
The issue here seems to be more that you are repeating versions of the same question in many threads, rather than understanding/accepting that people are not claiming that God can be proven, nor that this is necessary for faith - in fact it might kind of contradict the concept of faith. I do think it’s an interesting topic, and certainly one that I enjoy discussing. But so far, unless I’ve missed a thread devoted to it, it seems more that it’s been a repeated side topic in threads that have a different focus, so doesn’t get fully explored, and then it also annoys people because it’s not the point they are discussing. I think, for instance, mr cheesy’s analogy of science and poetry deserves further exploration in such a thread - a serious thread rather than a hell thread where people are also throwing in insults.
Hmmmmmm, I'll have a think! There is, of course, always the minuscule gap that has to be left for the possibilityin the case of a question about provability of God, of one being rproved one day, which makes the phrasing of
the question completely accurately tricky.
Another thing that occurs to me: people exist who use science as a sword - music is just air vibrations in the ear, painting is just pigment on canvas, books are just ink on a page. Love is just an emotion that we have evolved to care for our children.
Whilst acknowledging Susan's sight issues, I can't think of any other way to describe this way of seeing and experiencing the world than grey.
I can't think of any person interested in science I know, or know of, who expresses things that way. On the contrary, people like Richard Feynmann, and RD who quotes him, point out that the knowledge of how a rainbow is formed does not lessen one's appreciation of it, it doubles it.
My reader was here this morning, reading another section of 'Living With The Stars' and the detailed information about solar flares and what is known about them was just so absolutely fascinating.
That's the premise that the Frank Morison book, Who Moved the Stone? starts from, that the resurrection could not be possible and, according to the blurb, that's what he intended to argue. However, he found that there was a significant body of evidence that something happened: why else would the frightened disciples, running for their lives and hiding, come out into the open and start broadcasting the Christian faith?
Well, you must have heard the argument from jihadists on that score, why else would men and women pledge their lives to a cause unless it was true? A poor argument, which can probably be repeated endlessly about many causes..
I think the argument that is made is about the genuineness of the disciples’ belief in the resurrection. It is made against the suggestion that the disciples knew, really, that there had been no resurrection, but had some motive, such as perpetuating the memory of Jesus, for making up a story about his resurrection.
Even an atheist like me doesn't think that! Of course, it is absolutely reasonable that the disciples believed what they did, since it would have reflected the culture of the time and it is also reasonable that they did what they thought was right and true by telling others. That does not make what they believed factual though.
SusanDoris, I may be wrong, but it occurs to me that there are two very different questions you seem to be interested in, which you are perhaps conflating into one.
1. Why do people believe in God, when there is no current proof or scientific evidence? (And related to this - do people consider that they may be inventing this God, that he may not exist, but they are imagining him because they want him to exist, etc.?)
2. Is it possible that there may be scientific evidence for God in the future, and if so what form might that take, and how would it influence people, both believers and non believers?
Nonetheless @SusanDoris, some have argued that the disciples, knowing that Jesus really was physically dead, spoke of him as living on, as it were, through his teaching, and that this somehow transmogrified into a story about him having been raised from the dead.
There is, however,
a huge difference between a fact about an event in a person’s life and a fact about God
which is I deliberately chose the examples of two events in the past. You’re right that it is unlikely that anyone would want to contest my personal story, but that doesn’t change the issues around how I could prove it was true. Because, as you say, it would be insignificant for most people, they’d probably accept the ‘facticity’ of it without question.
Which leads me on to the second thing. You say
Okay, but I wonder why you would accept the beliefs of people two thousand years ago more than the objective * evidence we have today?
The answer is that if I want to know about an event in the past, then my first and arguably best access to it is through the testimony of those who were there at the time. The evidence for Jesus’ resurrection seems to me to be as strong as the evidence for many other events in the past which we accept without question. I don’t know that we have any better objective evidence today to contradict that.
(Of course some people begin from an a priori position that resurrection couldn’t have happened - in which case no amount of evidence that it did is likely to convince them. Our
knowledge gained since that time on the physical nature of life and all animal and mammalian species
tells us that we don’t know how it could have happened, but they don’t, indeed can’t, tell us that it couldn’t have happened.)
Nonetheless @SusanDoris, some have argued that the disciples, knowing that Jesus really was physically dead, spoke of him as living on, as it were, through his teaching, and that this somehow transmogrified into a story about him having been raised from the dead.
Nonetheless @SusanDoris, some have argued that the disciples, knowing that Jesus really was physically dead, spoke of him as living on, as it were, through his teaching, and that this somehow transmogrified into a story about him having been raised from the dead.
With the situation and knowledge of the time, that sounds like a reasonable assumption for the people of the time to make.
SusanDoris, I may be wrong, but it occurs to me that there are two very different questions you seem to be interested in, which you are perhaps conflating into one.
1. Why do people believe in God, when there is no current proof or scientific evidence? (And related to this - do people consider that they may be inventing this God, that he may not exist, but they are imagining him because they want him to exist, etc.?)
2. Is it possible that there may be scientific evidence for God in the future, and if so what form might that take, and how would it influence people, both believers and non believers?
I think you may be right, @fineline. And thanks for how you’re approaching this.
At the same time, I think there is a question or two that have been asked of @SusanDoris repeatedly, but that never seem to get answered, or so it appears to me. They are: First, is scientific evidence the only way to “know” something, or the only valid basis upon which to “believe” something? And second, related to this, if scientific evidence is not the only valid basis for “knowing” or “believing” something, then why is scientific evidence necessary when it comes to belief in God?
It seems to me that it’s the apparent, repeated avoidance of answering these questions—particularly the second, related question—that strikes many as lack of engagement.
People seem happy to discuss their own faith and experiences with you, as you claim to be curious about different people, but then it is frustrating when people share their experiences in good faith, not trying to convert you but simply sharing, and you just say ‘Yeah, but have you considered you might be wrong?’ As I said to you in the Images thread, of course people have considered this. People come to their faith through a whole process, of many thoughts and questions and doubts.
Absolutely incorrect, IME. Most people wander through on inertia. On SOF, I don't think this is as accurate. The Ship represents the small percentage of people who burn very many calories considering this. However, even here, there is a massive amount of assumption and lumped together reasoning.
So questioning the process is a reasonable thing.
SD's fault is that her approach is often rather more blunt object, than dissecting scalpel.
Lilbuddha, I was referring specifically to people on the Ship, as these are the people SD is speaking to. I have more than once said to SD that people with unquestioning faith are in abundance elsewhere! And yes, of course, there will still be people here who don’t question. I was referring to a previous conversation with SD on the Images thread where I discussed this in more detail, and made the clarifications you are making.
Nonetheless @SusanDoris, some have argued that the disciples, knowing that Jesus really was physically dead, spoke of him as living on, as it were, through his teaching, and that this somehow transmogrified into a story about him having been raised from the dead.
With the situation and knowledge of the time, that sounds like a reasonable assumption for the people of the time to make.
It’s a superficially attractive ‘explanation’ which doesn’t stand up (in my view) scrutiny.
Okay, but I wonder why you would accept the beliefs of people two thousand years ago more than the objective * evidence we have today?
The answer is that if I want to know about an event in the past, then my first and arguably best access to it is through the testimony of those who were there at the time. The evidence for Jesus’ resurrection seems to me to be as strong as the evidence for many other events in the past which we accept without question. I don’t know that we have any better objective evidence today to contradict that.
(Of course some people begin from an a priori position that resurrection couldn’t have happened - in which case no amount of evidence that it did is likely to convince them. Our
knowledge gained since that time on the physical nature of life and all animal and mammalian species
tells us that we don’t know how it could have happened, but they don’t, indeed can’t, tell us that it couldn’t have happened.)
Knowledge gained in the last 2,000 years can’t tell us whether the resurrection could have happened. It only tells us that we don’t know how it could have happened. What is your reason for discounting evidence from the time that it did happen? Where us your counter evidence?
The strongest counter evidence is that it's supernatural. I don't see how evidence for that works, unless you include stories about it. There is also the point that dead bodies don't come back to life. Of course, if you accept the supernatural, then you are home free, although I don't get how other supernatural stuff is ruled out, e.g., Caesar was divine. We can't falsify that, so stuff like this starts to run riot, actually I saw a water naiad last night.
Lilbuddha, I was referring specifically to people on the Ship, as these are the people SD is speaking to.
OK, I suppose I was being a bit too delicate in my phrasing. People on the Ship do question more than the average. However, I question whether they question as much as they think they do. So questioning that questioning is unquestionably fair play.
What isn't so fair, is the bluntness, imprecision and repetitiveness with which SD often does it.
As I've said I think this Hell call, and responses to her in general, are partly because of her atheism.
Her manner of posting can be genuinely irritating, I get that, and that irritation is part of the call. But at least she is nice and I do not perceive an iota of trollishness about her. And I typically am an early caller of that habit.
I can be an angry, hair-trigger and annoyingly relentless bitch. How many Hell calls have I received? Far fewer than I have been threatened with and likely fewer than I have earned, especially if annoyance is the standard, as is claimed here. So the question is why was SD called? And I genuinely think that atheism has a part in that. We humans do not like our beliefs challenged, our brains react the same to that as a physical threat. So it is natural and reasonable to feel more annoyed with a refutation than an internecine squabble. Hence, the point I have been making.
The strongest counter evidence is that it's supernatural.
The cause of the event might be supernatural, but the question whether the tomb was empty, and whether people saw and spoke to Jesus two days after his crucifixion are simply about effects/events in the natural world. In principle they are legitimate matters of historical enquiry.
Also, SusanDoris, have you read C.S. Lewis? Apologies if this is a conversation you’ve already had, but if you haven’t read him you might enjoy his books, such as Mere Christianity, and Surprised by Joy. Because, if I recall correctly, he did come to Christianity from atheism from logical reasoning. I don’t agree with all his reasoning, but he is very rigorous and logical in his thought process, and very readable - I’m sure his books must be available as audiobooks. I was just thinking he was someone who was presenting a kind of ‘proof’ (not technically proof, but apologetics) for Christianity, if that is the sort of thing you are looking for.
No intelligent atheist would give Lewis house room these days.
Also, SusanDoris, have you read C.S. Lewis? Apologies if this is a conversation you’ve already had, but if you haven’t read him you might enjoy his books, such as Mere Christianity, and Surprised by Joy. Because, if I recall correctly, he did come to Christianity from atheism from logical reasoning. I don’t agree with all his reasoning, but he is very rigorous and logical in his thought process, and very readable - I’m sure his books must be available as audiobooks. I was just thinking he was someone who was presenting a kind of ‘proof’ (not technically proof, but apologetics) for Christianity, if that is the sort of thing you are looking for.
No intelligent atheist would give Lewis house room these days.
When I was teaching, I read children's books so that I knew what they were reading, and that included the Narnia series. I could see the strong religious aspects of course, but although God had not quite left my mind at that point, I also winced slightly at the saccharine flavour, while seeing the excellent story-telling. I also read The Screw-Tape Letters, on the recommendation of a friend, but I could not read his books again!
The strongest counter evidence is that it's supernatural.
The cause of the event might be supernatural, but the question whether the tomb was empty, and whether people saw and spoke to Jesus two days after his crucifixion are simply about effects/events in the natural world. In principle they are legitimate matters of historical enquiry.
As I've said I think this Hell call, and responses to her in general, are partly because of her atheism.
Her manner of posting can be genuinely irritating, I get that, and that irritation is part of the call. ... So the question is why was SD called? And I genuinely think that atheism has a part in that. We humans do not like our beliefs challenged, our brains react the same to that as a physical threat. So it is natural and reasonable to feel more annoyed with a refutation than an internecine squabble. Hence, the point I have been making.
I think you're wrong. RooK isn't being called on his atheism, nor are others, as far as I've seen. On the other hand people get dragged to Hell weekly for posting style problems. For some reason style tends to irritate more.
My personal problem with SD is minor but yes, it's style. It's the Olympian tone--the "I have it all together and let me advise you from the heights of my superiority" thing. I have no sense of a real person there--unlike with other posters on the Ship. We may be happy, but we may also be annoyed, irritated, frustrated, confused... SD is none of these things. As presented, she is a polished and perfected piece of art. And that doesn't seem real to me at all.
RooK isn't being called on his atheism, nor are others, as far as I've seen. On the other hand people get dragged to Hell weekly for posting style problems. For some reason style tends to irritate more.
Rook doesn't post all that much, And people are afraid of him, for whatever reason.
Crœsos would be a better example of an atheist posting and challenging ideas. He is typically more polite, more informed and addresses issues rather than issues blanket statements, though.
Again, the atheism is only part.
Raptors Eye just plopped a load in the Are humans hard-wired for religion? thread that is every bit as flat, unreasoned and lacking as anything SD has posted. And it won't get called here even if he persists.
So the question is why was SD called? And I genuinely think that atheism has a part in that.
I have to agree with this. Other atheist posters do not make their atheism the main subject of their postings; SusanDoris does.
We humans do not like our beliefs challenged, our brains react the same to that as a physical threat. So it is natural and reasonable to feel more annoyed with a refutation than an internecine squabble. Hence, the point I have been making.
But I disagree with this as the reason behind it. SusanDoris drives everything back to First Principles: Is there a god? For those who presuppose that God exists, many other discussion topics here flow from that. It becomes unwieldy to try to continue the discussions when the underlying principle is continually challenged.
I don't mind the challenge at all! I just think it makes things untidy and unworkable to keep having to return to first principles in every subject.
The patronizing, overly-cheerful tone doesn't help either. On the Old Ship I said SusanDoris reminded me of an Agatha Christie villain: cheerful, helpful, and completely ready to brain you with a shovel and bury you in the backyard.
But I disagree with this as the reason behind it. SusanDoris drives everything back to First Principles: Is there a god? For those who presuppose that God exists, many other discussion topics here flow from that. It becomes unwieldy to try to continue the discussions when the underlying principle is continually challenged.
Aye, that she does, but again, far from unique in that.
I don't mind the challenge at all!
I'm sure if we put everyone in an MRI machine, not all would react the same way to every challenge. It remains that most of use do and to a greater extent than we will oft admit even to ourselves.
The patronizing, overly-cheerful tone doesn't help either. On the Old Ship I said SusanDoris reminded me of an Agatha Christie villain: cheerful, helpful, and completely ready to brain you with a shovel and bury you in the backyard.
I do think the atheism is part of the reason for calling her at all. Lil Buddha's point has validity IMO. But SusanDoris' posting style is the biggest irritation for many folks. Me, I don't let her get under my skin, but then I don't get deeply into Purg discussions often, not having much skill at punch and counter-punch.
Also, I believe her cheerful niceness is the perfect rope-a-dope defense.
RooK isn't being called on his atheism, nor are others, as far as I've seen. On the other hand people get dragged to Hell weekly for posting style problems. For some reason style tends to irritate more.
Rook doesn't post all that much, And people are afraid of him, for whatever reason.
Crœsos would be a better example of an atheist posting and challenging ideas. He is typically more polite, more informed and addresses issues rather than issues blanket statements, though.
Again, the atheism is only part.
Raptors Eye just plopped a load in the Are humans hard-wired for religion? thread that is every bit as flat, unreasoned and lacking as anything SD has posted. And it won't get called here even if he persists.
Atheism in and of itself isn't the issue she's called on as I see it. It is of course the part of the subject because she crusades with it in an extremely linear way, but it's still relentless crusading, polite or not.
she gets more, not less, unreasonable. She refuses to "play by" the standard she herself has set up. So I can give you that -- she equates atheism with reasonability, and then is unreasonable, so complaints about her discussion style (I say "discussion" rather than the more accurate "debate" because she has an unreasonably rigid and narrow definition of "debate") are in that way "about" her atheism.
Yes, my lack of belief is an essential part of me while belief is that of most members here. However, it is not rigid - that would be unreasonable, but what do you think should change my mind?
Here. Right here. No need to go back. You do not in the least engage with what I said. Your response is a huge non-sequitur.
Rook doesn't post all that much, And people are afraid of him, for whatever reason.
[contemplates]
My, it has been a long time since I was a Hellhost.
There were reasons.
Chest puff duly noted.
Well, aside from the all-important tense. I lack the energy required to be anything like my reputation may have established.
That's definitely the best way to go about it. With a little luck this thread will die a quick death and nobody will remember you admitted this. And you can go back to letting your reputation do all the work for you! I'm just thinking about your well-being.
she gets more, not less, unreasonable. She refuses to "play by" the standard she herself has set up. So I can give you that -- she equates atheism with reasonability, and then is unreasonable, so complaints about her discussion style (I say "discussion" rather than the more accurate "debate" because she has an unreasonably rigid and narrow definition of "debate") are in that way "about" her atheism.
Yes, my lack of belief is an essential part of me while belief is that of most members here. However, it is not rigid - that would be unreasonable, but what do you think should change my mind?
Here. Right here. No need to go back. You do not in the least engage with what I said. Your response is a huge non-sequitur.
I'm not totally sure I see the disconnect the same way you do. Could you lay out what you think she is missing, and how you would recognize her responding to you?
But I disagree with this as the reason behind it. SusanDoris drives everything back to First Principles: Is there a god? For those who presuppose that God exists, many other discussion topics here flow from that. It becomes unwieldy to try to continue the discussions when the underlying principle is continually challenged.
I don't mind the challenge at all! I just think it makes things untidy and unworkable to keep having to return to first principles in every subject.
On every thread, whatever else is being discussed. That's what is so frustrating.
There are many atheists on the Ship who are never called to Hell. They do not want to return Every. Single. Thread. That. Discusses. Anything. To. Do. With. Religion. To. First. Principles. Their first principles that say God does not exist, the Bible consists of fairy stories for the credulous, anyone who believes is less intelligent because they cannot see that everything that helps their belief are figments of their imagination, that if only they understood properly they would see clearly and get beyond this impossible belief.
(And yes, we have had other atheists who did this on the Ship in the past and they spent a lot of time in Hell. As do some of the Christians who do similar things.)
As I've said I think this Hell call, and responses to her in general, are partly because of her atheism.
Her manner of posting can be genuinely irritating, I get that, and that irritation is part of the call. ... So the question is why was SD called? And I genuinely think that atheism has a part in that. We humans do not like our beliefs challenged, our brains react the same to that as a physical threat. So it is natural and reasonable to feel more annoyed with a refutation than an internecine squabble. Hence, the point I have been making.
I think you're wrong. RooK isn't being called on his atheism, nor are others, as far as I've seen. On the other hand people get dragged to Hell weekly for posting style problems. For some reason style tends to irritate more.
My personal problem with SD is minor but yes, it's style. It's the Olympian tone--the "I have it all together and let me advise you from the heights of my superiority" thing. I have no sense of a real person there--unlike with other posters on the Ship. We may be happy, but we may also be annoyed, irritated, frustrated, confused... SD is none of these things. As presented, she is a polished and perfected piece of art. And that doesn't seem real to me at all.
I posted this but the quote tags must be wrong. I've tried to edit but not sure how to change it. Apologies.
]If only!!!!! wrinkled, now skinny arms, height two inches shorter than it used to be, knee-high support stockings, weekly visit to hairdresser's - although here I have a small asset: some natural colour left. I wish I could still give you a link to my website, but my ISP vanished it a couple of years ago. I have all the draft pages, but no vehicle to put them on. I'll see if the Tech chap can sort out how to put a link to me tap dancing, taken a year ago by my daughter-in-law so that there is a video of me at my favourite hobby for my sons to see, since otherwise they will never have observed this phenomenon when I die!
she gets more, not less, unreasonable. She refuses to "play by" the standard she herself has set up. So I can give you that -- she equates atheism with reasonability, and then is unreasonable, so complaints about her discussion style (I say "discussion" rather than the more accurate "debate" because she has an unreasonably rigid and narrow definition of "debate") are in that way "about" her atheism.
Yes, my lack of belief is an essential part of me while belief is that of most members here. However, it is not rigid - that would be unreasonable, but what do you think should change my mind?
Here. Right here. No need to go back. You do not in the least engage with what I said. Your response is a huge non-sequitur.
I'm not totally sure I see the disconnect the same way you do. Could you lay out what you think she is missing, and how you would recognize her responding to you?
Thank you for saying that. I shall be interested to see mousethief's reply.e
I feel we need more SusanDoris not less, and in the service of that aim, may I present the SusanDoris Post Generator v0.2?
Would your thread benefit from SusanDoris input? Is the real person away from keyboard? Never fear - the SusanDoris Post Generator is here to help. It produces content that accurately simulates SusanDoris content! Nine out of ten reviewers who expressed a preference agree that it is indistinguishable from the actual poster! The comfortable familiarity produced will improve all threads! Try it and see today!
Simply roll a die and cut and paste the result from the following table:
1. Do you recognise that all ideas of God are 100% the creation of the human mind?
2. Once someone realises that there is no evidence for God it is impossible to go back to believing in God.
3. Science now tells us that morality evolved because it aided the survival of the species.
4. That was reasonable for them at the time but I wonder whether if they had seen how science and culture have moved on after 2000 years they would have agreed that there is no supernatural.
5. This is a fascinating thread. I agree with (insert list of all atheists who have posted on the thread).
6. This is a fascinating thread. I have nothing to contribute.
For example, if you roll a 1, the SusanDoris Post Generator will post:
Do you recognise that all ideas of God are 100% the creation of the human mind?
You will agree that everyone reading the thread will be much the wiser and better informed for that.
I feel we need more SusanDoris not less, and in the service of that aim, may I present the SusanDoris Post Generator v0.2?
Would your thread benefit from SusanDoris input? Is the real person away from keyboard? Never fear - the SusanDoris Post Generator is here to help. It produces content that accurately simulates SusanDoris content! Nine out of ten reviewers who expressed a preference agree that it is indistinguishable from the actual poster! The comfortable familiarity produced will improve all threads! Try it and see today!
Simply roll a die and cut and paste the result from the following table:
1. Do you recognise that all ideas of God are 100% the creation of the human mind?
2. Once someone realises that there is no evidence for God it is impossible to go back to believing in God.
3. Science now tells us that morality evolved because it aided the survival of the species.
4. That was reasonable for them at the time but I wonder whether if they had seen how science and culture have moved on after 2000 years they would have agreed that there is no supernatural.
5. This is a fascinating thread. I agree with (insert list of all atheists who have posted on the thread).
6. This is a fascinating thread. I have nothing to contribute.
For example, if you roll a 1, the SusanDoris Post Generator will post:
Do you recognise that all ideas of God are 100% the creation of the human mind?
You will agree that everyone reading the thread will be much the wiser and better informed for that.
Brilliant!, Dafyd. Like all good satirists, you know your target well.
Ms. Doris seems like a nice person -- worth knowing and probably charming to chat with in real life. But as a thread-hijacker she is right up there in skill and tenacity with Stephen Langton. I have to confess that I scroll past her posts and the posts engaging with her. Life is short, and time precious. You can't engage with everyone.
I also want to put in a good word for Mudfrog. He always addresses the topic and often provides insights that I learn something from. He helps me understand the world as seen, and lived in, by a sincere, commited, social justice oriented evangelical. Some atheists do this too, about their world view, but not in the case being discussed here.
she gets more, not less, unreasonable. She refuses to "play by" the standard she herself has set up. So I can give you that -- she equates atheism with reasonability, and then is unreasonable, so complaints about her discussion style (I say "discussion" rather than the more accurate "debate" because she has an unreasonably rigid and narrow definition of "debate") are in that way "about" her atheism.
Yes, my lack of belief is an essential part of me while belief is that of most members here. However, it is not rigid - that would be unreasonable, but what do you think should change my mind?
Here. Right here. No need to go back. You do not in the least engage with what I said. Your response is a huge non-sequitur.
My point is about the way she argues, refusing to play by the standard she set up. Her response: Yeah, my lack of belief is an essential part of me. Belief is an essential part of others. What should change my mind?
I didn't say ANYTHING about changing her mind. Nothing. I was talking about the way she argues. Which she did not respond to AT ALL.
she gets more, not less, unreasonable. She refuses to "play by" the standard she herself has set up. So I can give you that -- she equates atheism with reasonability, and then is unreasonable, so complaints about her discussion style (I say "discussion" rather than the more accurate "debate" because she has an unreasonably rigid and narrow definition of "debate") are in that way "about" her atheism.
Yes, my lack of belief is an essential part of me while belief is that of most members here. However, it is not rigid - that would be unreasonable, but what do you think should change my mind?
Here. Right here. No need to go back. You do not in the least engage with what I said. Your response is a huge non-sequitur.
My point is about the way she argues, refusing to play by the standard she set up. Her response: Yeah, my lack of belief is an essential part of me. Belief is an essential part of others. What should change my mind?
I didn't say ANYTHING about changing her mind. Nothing. I was talking about the way she argues. Which she did not respond to AT ALL.
I do not refuse to argue; I listen to a post, click on the 'quote' button and [decide what words to choose when responding. I am pleased to hear that some simply scroll past my posts, and equally pleased to read any subsequent responses to what I have said. .
she gets more, not less, unreasonable. She refuses to "play by" the standard she herself has set up. So I can give you that -- she equates atheism with reasonability, and then is unreasonable, so complaints about her discussion style (I say "discussion" rather than the more accurate "debate" because she has an unreasonably rigid and narrow definition of "debate") are in that way "about" her atheism.
Yes, my lack of belief is an essential part of me while belief is that of most members here. However, it is not rigid - that would be unreasonable, but what do you think should change my mind?
Here. Right here. No need to go back. You do not in the least engage with what I said. Your response is a huge non-sequitur.
My point is about the way she argues, refusing to play by the standard she set up. Her response: Yeah, my lack of belief is an essential part of me. Belief is an essential part of others. What should change my mind?
I didn't say ANYTHING about changing her mind. Nothing. I was talking about the way she argues. Which she did not respond to AT ALL.
I do not refuse to argue; I listen to a post, click on the 'quote' button and [decide what words to choose when responding. I am pleased to hear that some simply scroll past my posts, and equally pleased to read any subsequent responses to what I have said. .
SusanDoris, responding to a quote is not the same as engaging with what was said in the quote. @mousethief made three very clear, to me at least, and related points:
First, he said you have set standards—I believe he means standards of evidence on what is "known"—that you hold others to but do not hold yourself to.
Second, he said that you equate atheism with reasonableness.
Third, he said that, despite your equation of atheism with reasonableness, you are unreasonable in how you engage with others because you refuse to hold yourself to the standards to which you hold others.
In response, you said that your lack of belief is part of who you are and that your lack of belief is not rigid, and you wondered why you should change your mind. While it was a response to mousethief in the sense that you quoted him in saying what you had to say, it was a response that had very little, if anything at all, to do with what he had said.
To actually respond to what mousethief said, you need to address head on his assertion that you set standards to which you hold others but to which you do not hold yourself. Short of that, your responses will likely be seen as responses that avoid engagement with others.
Comments
The post came out with a twice-quoted quote from you - I must find out why I seem to get more than I need in the edit area - something to do with multiple quotes I think.
SusanDoris, I wonder if you approach discussions expecting people to be wanting to change your mind. Whereas in reality, people do not come to the Ship with the intention of converting people (there are plenty of religious groups that do have this intention, but not here). People are quite happy for you to believe what you believe. You are the one wanting to discuss it, wanting people to prove to you, whereas people feel no need to prove anything to you, because people generally accept that faith is not something that can be proved.
People seem happy to discuss their own faith and experiences with you, as you claim to be curious about different people, but then it is frustrating when people share their experiences in good faith, not trying to convert you but simply sharing, and you just say ‘Yeah, but have you considered you might be wrong?’ As I said to you in the Images thread, of course people have considered this. People come to their faith through a whole process, of many thoughts and questions and doubts. No one is obliged to convince you that their personal experience is objective fact - no one is even trying to do this.
Are you planning to respond to the earlier post from me here?
Nah, never apologise for being who you are. It’s good to have that sort of resilience anyway, and especially as you get older, I think, as many lose their resilience.
the question completely accurately tricky.
My reader was here this morning, reading another section of 'Living With The Stars' and the detailed information about solar flares and what is known about them was just so absolutely fascinating.
1. Why do people believe in God, when there is no current proof or scientific evidence? (And related to this - do people consider that they may be inventing this God, that he may not exist, but they are imagining him because they want him to exist, etc.?)
2. Is it possible that there may be scientific evidence for God in the future, and if so what form might that take, and how would it influence people, both believers and non believers?
It's a more a case of posting style, but you've picked up on that.
I have actually responded, but will have another look and see if there is something I have missed.
Sounds reasonable.
At the same time, I think there is a question or two that have been asked of @SusanDoris repeatedly, but that never seem to get answered, or so it appears to me. They are: First, is scientific evidence the only way to “know” something, or the only valid basis upon which to “believe” something? And second, related to this, if scientific evidence is not the only valid basis for “knowing” or “believing” something, then why is scientific evidence necessary when it comes to belief in God?
It seems to me that it’s the apparent, repeated avoidance of answering these questions—particularly the second, related question—that strikes many as lack of engagement.
So questioning the process is a reasonable thing.
SD's fault is that her approach is often rather more blunt object, than dissecting scalpel.
The bit you haven’t responded to is this: Knowledge gained in the last 2,000 years can’t tell us whether the resurrection could have happened. It only tells us that we don’t know how it could have happened. What is your reason for discounting evidence from the time that it did happen? Where us your counter evidence?
What isn't so fair, is the bluntness, imprecision and repetitiveness with which SD often does it.
As I've said I think this Hell call, and responses to her in general, are partly because of her atheism.
Her manner of posting can be genuinely irritating, I get that, and that irritation is part of the call. But at least she is nice and I do not perceive an iota of trollishness about her. And I typically am an early caller of that habit.
I can be an angry, hair-trigger and annoyingly relentless bitch. How many Hell calls have I received? Far fewer than I have been threatened with and likely fewer than I have earned, especially if annoyance is the standard, as is claimed here. So the question is why was SD called? And I genuinely think that atheism has a part in that. We humans do not like our beliefs challenged, our brains react the same to that as a physical threat. So it is natural and reasonable to feel more annoyed with a refutation than an internecine squabble. Hence, the point I have been making.
No intelligent atheist would give Lewis house room these days.
Which is also rubbish - circular argument.
Perhaps ...
Crœsos would be a better example of an atheist posting and challenging ideas. He is typically more polite, more informed and addresses issues rather than issues blanket statements, though.
Again, the atheism is only part.
Raptors Eye just plopped a load in the Are humans hard-wired for religion? thread that is every bit as flat, unreasoned and lacking as anything SD has posted. And it won't get called here even if he persists.
I have to agree with this. Other atheist posters do not make their atheism the main subject of their postings; SusanDoris does.
But I disagree with this as the reason behind it. SusanDoris drives everything back to First Principles: Is there a god? For those who presuppose that God exists, many other discussion topics here flow from that. It becomes unwieldy to try to continue the discussions when the underlying principle is continually challenged.
I don't mind the challenge at all! I just think it makes things untidy and unworkable to keep having to return to first principles in every subject.
The patronizing, overly-cheerful tone doesn't help either. On the Old Ship I said SusanDoris reminded me of an Agatha Christie villain: cheerful, helpful, and completely ready to brain you with a shovel and bury you in the backyard.
Also, I believe her cheerful niceness is the perfect rope-a-dope defense.
Atheism in and of itself isn't the issue she's called on as I see it. It is of course the part of the subject because she crusades with it in an extremely linear way, but it's still relentless crusading, polite or not.
[contemplates]
My, it has been a long time since I was a Hellhost.
There were reasons.
Well, aside from the all-important tense. I lack the energy required to be anything like my reputation may have established.
I'm not totally sure I see the disconnect the same way you do. Could you lay out what you think she is missing, and how you would recognize her responding to you?
There are many atheists on the Ship who are never called to Hell. They do not want to return Every. Single. Thread. That. Discusses. Anything. To. Do. With. Religion. To. First. Principles. Their first principles that say God does not exist, the Bible consists of fairy stories for the credulous, anyone who believes is less intelligent because they cannot see that everything that helps their belief are figments of their imagination, that if only they understood properly they would see clearly and get beyond this impossible belief.
(And yes, we have had other atheists who did this on the Ship in the past and they spent a lot of time in Hell. As do some of the Christians who do similar things.)
Would your thread benefit from SusanDoris input? Is the real person away from keyboard? Never fear - the SusanDoris Post Generator is here to help. It produces content that accurately simulates SusanDoris content! Nine out of ten reviewers who expressed a preference agree that it is indistinguishable from the actual poster! The comfortable familiarity produced will improve all threads! Try it and see today!
Simply roll a die and cut and paste the result from the following table:
1. Do you recognise that all ideas of God are 100% the creation of the human mind?
2. Once someone realises that there is no evidence for God it is impossible to go back to believing in God.
3. Science now tells us that morality evolved because it aided the survival of the species.
4. That was reasonable for them at the time but I wonder whether if they had seen how science and culture have moved on after 2000 years they would have agreed that there is no supernatural.
5. This is a fascinating thread. I agree with (insert list of all atheists who have posted on the thread).
6. This is a fascinating thread. I have nothing to contribute.
For example, if you roll a 1, the SusanDoris Post Generator will post:
Do you recognise that all ideas of God are 100% the creation of the human mind?
You will agree that everyone reading the thread will be much the wiser and better informed for that.
I think I'll have one of those, please!! Can I get it on Amazon?
Ms. Doris seems like a nice person -- worth knowing and probably charming to chat with in real life. But as a thread-hijacker she is right up there in skill and tenacity with Stephen Langton. I have to confess that I scroll past her posts and the posts engaging with her. Life is short, and time precious. You can't engage with everyone.
I also want to put in a good word for Mudfrog. He always addresses the topic and often provides insights that I learn something from. He helps me understand the world as seen, and lived in, by a sincere, commited, social justice oriented evangelical. Some atheists do this too, about their world view, but not in the case being discussed here.
My point is about the way she argues, refusing to play by the standard she set up. Her response: Yeah, my lack of belief is an essential part of me. Belief is an essential part of others. What should change my mind?
I didn't say ANYTHING about changing her mind. Nothing. I was talking about the way she argues. Which she did not respond to AT ALL.
First, he said you have set standards—I believe he means standards of evidence on what is "known"—that you hold others to but do not hold yourself to.
Second, he said that you equate atheism with reasonableness.
Third, he said that, despite your equation of atheism with reasonableness, you are unreasonable in how you engage with others because you refuse to hold yourself to the standards to which you hold others.
In response, you said that your lack of belief is part of who you are and that your lack of belief is not rigid, and you wondered why you should change your mind. While it was a response to mousethief in the sense that you quoted him in saying what you had to say, it was a response that had very little, if anything at all, to do with what he had said.
To actually respond to what mousethief said, you need to address head on his assertion that you set standards to which you hold others but to which you do not hold yourself. Short of that, your responses will likely be seen as responses that avoid engagement with others.