I'm sick of this forum.

[icehorse]

It's nothing to do with free speech or hate speech, but the fact society collectively deserves a ***** slapping for the way it treats certain people. But, even with legislation, society still needs a serious attitude readjustment for anything to effectively happen.
Really, it's more of a problem with our philosophically libertarian view of free will, and our collective reluctance to accept our words have consequences. With free will, we lose accountability once it slips our lips. But, with acknowledging that the actions, including words, of ourselves and of others has a direct impact on those around them, comes the acknowledgement we aren't as free as we like to think we are.

I would say that you're not the problem

 

[icehorse]

In that culture sure. That is how they resolve all problems. But all unresolved problems don't end in violence in Western culture. Discussion isn't a panacea, and if someone dogmatically has no desire to discuss what they believe is cast in concrete, I can't see how that makes them de facto violent. Two opposing dogmatists each may not want to talk about what they know to be true, why bother ? No one is going to be convinced of anything. Mutual assassination isn't the ultimate result !

Let's flip this around a bit - how often is it that a violent act based on ideology ISN'T because of an inability to truly discuss the situation?

 

[shmogie]

Let's flip this around a bit - how often is it that a violent act based on ideology ISN'T because of an inability to truly discuss the situation?

A percentage of the time, I am sure.

 

[74x12]

There is too much hatred and bigotry on this site. Racism, homophobia, transphobia, bashing Muslims, bashing Jews, etc. It's way out of hand here. In one thread, you have a poster accusing transgender people of being mentally ill sexual predators and in another, you have a poster going on an anti-black racist rant (with a "like" from a staff member, no less!). And that's only what I've seen tonight. It's getting to the point where I do not feel this is a welcoming or respectful message board. I have more productive and respectful discussions on Facebook. At least there I do not have to pretend to be nice to people who obviously see me as subhuman.

This site needs to change and do better. I really don't want to leave this site as I have friends here and good memories, but I often find myself angry, hurt and sad reading posts on this site. I really wonder why I bother when this place can be so toxic. I just wanted to air my concerns. It's something that's been on my mind for awhile.

Even though we don't always agree. I think we disagree respectfully. I really care about you. Not that I know you in real life or anything. But, I'm not kidding. I felt a powerful feeling that God loves you. And that's important to me. Not that I'm proselytizing; just speaking my mind. Explaining myself.

 

[savagewind]

Tonight, I am sick of it too. Brother.

 

[Revoltingest]

Tonight, I am sick of it too. Brother.

This should make things better.
(It's extra lean!)

 

[savagewind]

This should make things better.....

OK. Butter, sugar, and bacon. I shall never try that. I am sure.

 

[savagewind]

Bacon and sugar are at odds. Do you not know that?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This should make things better.
(It's extra lean!)

The perversion!

New Bacon and sugar are at odds. Do you not know that?

Bacon cooked in a bit of maple syrup is pretty tasty.

 

[savagewind]

The perversion!

Bacon cooked in a bit of maple syrup is pretty tasty.

Yes, like with pancakes.

 

[Curious George]

"He"?
You don't know who that is?
Tom

Yes, my understanding was that he was Frank's choice of pronoun. And no, I do not know who user @Frankenstein is.

 

[Deidre]

As I said earlier, I haven't really seen that on this forum, and I find that strange because I would have thought that the forums I frequent would be where stuff like that might come up?

lol it was in a recent thread that has since been deleted. But, I've seen some scathing comments directed at people before. But, the mods here are great about keeping it civil.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How is someone dehumanized by words about the color of their skin, or anything else ? How can words written on a computer screen dehumanize you ? It would seem that if words can dehumanize you, your hold on your humanity is tenuous to me.

We dehumanize an individual or a demographic by describing them in terms that depicts them as less than acceptable. Teaching people that a good god considers homosexuals an abomination depicts them as inferior for being who they are, and eventually leads to bullying, violence, and suicide.

Because as a LEO I was called every vile name conceivable. I was spit on, I was threatened with death, my family was threatened. It never "dehumanized" me.

That's not what the term dehumanizing refers to in this context. It's not about what people say to you, but what they say to others about you. Trump dehumanized immigrants and refugees by depicting them as a wave of infection riddled criminals.

And this is done with atheists continually. We're cold, soulless, hollow vessels whose lives are meaningless and purposeless, people with no basis for morality, people who are in rebellion against a good god that they hate in order to sin and hope to escape accountability. Did I leave anything out?

I don't feel the least dehumanized by that kind of thinking, but I know that I am in the eyes of many believers, people who are still taught and teach their children that atheists don't have the moral character necessary to hold elected office - people who would never dream of electing an atheist.

Not long ago, we were also deemed unfit to teach, coach, adopt, or serve on juries.

That's what dehumanization is.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

if I say what someone posted is moronic, do you think that is an ad hominem attack? I don't think it is. What people say could be moronic. Declaring something someone says as being moronic is NOT the same thing as calling them a moron. Calling someone a moron would be like, "You are a moron".

Calling somebody's idea moronic is equivalent to calling them a moron. Why else would one do such a thing except to fire off a gratuitous insult? Is there anybody reading such words that doesn't feel attacked and insulted?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yet we can see that we do not live in such a world. If either of us had the power to make the necessary changes, we could make this world better a thousand ways.

My first act might be to have the animals not be killing one another for food. Make them all herbivores in a peaceable kingdom.

Eliminating childhood leukemia would take us step closer to the best of all possible worlds, as would the elimination of hunger.

Just a few ideas I'm throwing out there in case any deities needing a few fresh ideas are reading along with us.

I can see no such thing. It would take something like omniscience on MY part to say definitively that if anything were different about this universe that it would be a better place.

OK. Then let me rephrase that from "If either of us had the power to make the necessary changes, we could make this world better a thousand ways" to "I could."

I can see it easily without omniscience.

If hunger were eliminated, we'd all die of malnutrition because we wouldn't know when we needed to eat. Good thinking!

Equivocation fallacy.

Eliminating hunger in this context means eliminating the starvation associated with famine or poverty, not spoiling one's appetite or taking a hunger suppressant.

soon we would be overrun by insects and small mammals before all the vegetation was consumed; life on Earth as we know it would cease to exist. Great job!

No, as God I would tend to that as well. I can't see a use for insects in a world of herbivores and plants.

Is it really so hard to think of how the world could be made better? We don't need gods for that. Man has been doing it for centuries.

How do you like electric light at night?

Was it a perfect world when people got polio? Were we taking a huge chance upsetting nature and inviting unintended consequences by defeating it?

I sure would love a crack at the job of being God. If I had godlike powers, I bet you'd love the world I'd give you better than this one. Is your mom gone? Mine is. I'd bring them both back, young, strong, and beautiful.

Your answer to the theodicy problem is to claim that the world couldn't be any better - that what appears to be damaging to us is actually either good or unavoidable.

I resolve the problem by dispensing with the god. In fact, the theodicy problem itself is one of many arguments against the existence of such a god. The problem just disappears with the god.

You were discussing Occam's Razor with another poster on another thread very recently. Let's apply that here. Either we have what appears to be needless suffering because that's what we should expect in a godless universe as I believe, or we have an omni-god, and though there is no apparent reason why it should be the case, somehow, this suffering is not needless. It only seems like eliminating childhood leukemia would make the world better, but it actually wouldn't in this, the best of all possible worlds. I believe that that is your position.

Your position, though logically possible, is unnecessarily complicated, that is, not parsimonious. It relies on gods and extremely unlikely possibilities

Occam says that the simplest explanation that accounts for all relevant observed facts is the preferred one

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Is @Lvcifer Invictvs @Frankenstein? They call him "Frank".

Yes, I was formally Saint Frankenstein, and I'm a guy. Ignore what my hatefully obsessed fanclub says about me. Lol. (I'm not talking about you, @Curious George. )

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Because as a LEO I was called every vile name conceivable. I was spit on, I was threatened with death, my family was threatened. It never "dehumanized" me. I dealt with it and shrugged it off.

I'm pretty sure people aren't all like you. Should they be?
Regardless, I'm not easy to offend, but that doesn't mean I can't see that words impact on people, nor that resillience is easy for people to develop.

I have been personally attacked here because of my faith, and my faith itself has been regularly dragged through the mud. Though the tactics of crude simple minds, they can say what they choose. I choose not not let it bother me.

Perhaps. Colour me unconvinced, but I can accept that at face value if you like. Still not sure what it has to do with people. Just you. People aren't all like me, either.

Do you think I give a lot of credence to someone allowing himself to feel "dehumanized" and hurt by words on a computer screen ? One can control "feelings", one can chose to be above allowing someone else to determining how we feel about ourselves.

Resillience is a skill. Some are vastly better at it than others. Empathy is also a skill.
And controlling feelings is only true to a point, for anyone. Even you. Even me.

This whole thread amazes me. Complain about bad behavior, sure, admit to being "hurt" and distraught because of it boggles the mind. That is that persons problem. I, nor anyone else, including those who upset him/her are responsible. He/she offered the best solution for themselves if they can;'t cope. The world can be tough and you can't manipulate it to suit your own perceived needs.

You think words are merely words? That's interesting. Ever been moved to joy by mere words? Happiness? Tears?
I have. I can only conclude that words can convey emotion. That which can cause joy can cause pain. The fact that I've learnt to shrug it off isn't the point. It's there.

Stress within the police force is a real thing. And, of course, not all of it is related to 'mere' words. But threats to kill are mere words. Threats of violence are too. And in a professional where real violence is always possible, threats commonly lead to physical reactions (raised adrenaline, for example). Why? They are mere words...right?

Note: Lest any self appointed PC police sniper begin firing, my use of he/she means nothing other than I don't know the sex of the poster.

Look, no doubt some people can be overly sensitive, and to me there seems no doubt that is on the rise.
I'm a father, and am trying my best to ensure my kids don't end up that way. I was a school teacher, and did the same then. I've argued against junior sports where scores aren't kept, or where everyone gets a ribbon.

But, personally, I think you're being reactionary here. Just my take.

PS. Sorry on the slow reply, I had a few threads to reply to.

 

[Axe Elf]

OK. Then let me rephrase that from "If either of us had the power to make the necessary changes, we could make this world better a thousand ways" to "I could."

I can see it easily without omniscience.

LOL

You're arguing like a child who, without any understanding of nutrition, thinks that they could make every meal better by serving only cookies and ice cream.

The presumption that you understand the workings of the universe better than its creator "easily without omniscience" is beyond laughable.

Equivocation fallacy.

Eliminating hunger in this context means eliminating the starvation associated with famine or poverty, not spoiling one's appetite or taking a hunger suppressant.

My response was relevant to what you SAID, but apparently you didn't mean "ending hunger" you meant "ending starvation" or maybe just "ending malnutrition." But just as "ending hunger" would bring about all kinds of unintended collateral effects, so would "ending starvation" and even "ending malnutrition" (for one thing, you just put all fast food employees out of work). Again, you have no way of knowing the ultimate effects on the universe if just one rotting potato was in a child's stomach instead of in a garbage pile somewhere, or if just one starving person's life was saved--and you're talking about multiplying those unforeseen consequences by thousands--each and every day--yet you feel comfortable and confident saying that nothing worse could ever come of that? Again, laughable.

No, as God I would tend to that as well. I can't see a use for insects in a world of herbivores and plants.

Well, insects do play a vital role in the life cycle of many plants, being agents of pollination and such, but yeah, I'm sure just getting rid of all the insects wouldn't have any negative effects on the world's supply of vegetarian foods. Heck, we're not even sure that we can survive without bees. And insects are used for other things, too, from cosmetics to medicines--all gone. Some "god" you are.

Is it really so hard to think of how the world could be made better? We don't need gods for that. Man has been doing it for centuries.

It's not hard at all to wish for things that would benefit us, but it IS really hard to think through every single possible consequence of a butterfly fluttering its wings in Hong Kong, let alone something like eliminating all the insects in the world.

How do you like electric light at night?

I like it a lot. I wouldn't want to live without it.

Was it a perfect world when people got polio?

It was, it is, and it always will be, the best of all possible universes.

Were we taking a huge chance upsetting nature and inviting unintended consequences by defeating it?

No, whatever happens in the best of all possible universes is obviously necessary to the best of all possible universes. Polio was, is, and always will be defeated at the best of all possible times.

I sure would love a crack at the job of being God. If I had godlike powers, I bet you'd love the world I'd give you better than this one.

I sure wish I could take that bet. You'd be scratching your head the first time a stray gamma particle reflects off of a child that was supposed to have starved and instead causes a mutation in a nearby bacterium that sets in motion the rise of a disease that strips our planet of life. Thanks, substitute god!

Is your mom gone? Mine is. I'd bring them both back, young, strong, and beautiful.

Mom still lives; dad died last October. He was a farmer, who worked hard, physical 12-hour days most all of his life. Although he was largely retired at the age of 83, he had been in the field that morning that he went into the hospital for the last time. If I brought him back from eternity in paradise to live that life all over again, just because I want another hug, I would expect him to be torqued AF. So you can be selfish with your mom if you want, but leave my dead relatives to their reward.

Your answer to the theodicy problem is to claim that the world couldn't be any better - that what appears to be damaging to us is actually either good or unavoidable.

I resolve the problem by dispensing with the god. In fact, the theodicy problem itself is one of many arguments against the existence of such a god. The problem just disappears with the god.

Yeah, pretty much all conversations about God become meaningless if it is understood that God does not exist. But it's more engaging, entertaining, and productive to work out the ways that a God COULD rationally exist, rather than to just deny the effort. You choose to dispense with the theodicy problem by dispensing with God; I choose to keep God and resolve the problem instead.

You were discussing Occam's Razor with another poster on another thread very recently. Let's apply that here. Either we have what appears to be needless suffering because that's what we should expect in a godless universe as I believe, or we have an omni-god, and though there is no apparent reason why it should be the case, somehow, this suffering is not needless.

I wouldn't say that there is no apparent reason for it; the reason can be stated clearly in one paragraph.

Occam's Razor applies to competing explanations. You have unexplained suffering in an unexplained universe, so I'm not sure what competing "explanation" you are offering, other than saying, "there isn't an explanation." I am not only offering an explanation for the universe (an omni-God that created it), but also for the bad stuff we see in it (that an omni-God has no choice but to create the best of all possible universes, so any bad stuff we observe is only that bad stuff that is necessary to the best of all possible universes).

It only seems like eliminating childhood leukemia would make the world better, but it actually wouldn't in this, the best of all possible worlds. I believe that that is your position.

Yes, that could be considered a corollary to the main argument.

Your position, though logically possible, is unnecessarily complicated, that is, not parsimonious. It relies on gods and extremely unlikely possibilities

Occam says that the simplest explanation that accounts for all relevant observed facts is the preferred one

Do you have a simpler explanation? Or are you going with "There is no explanation" as the simpler alternative? I don't think that one would qualify as "accounting for all relevant observed facts."

But even if a simpler explanation could be proposed (and that is indeed possible), Occam's Razor isn't a proof of truth, it's just a guideline. Sometimes, a more complex explanation IS, in fact, the correct one--it just saves time and effort to explore more parsimonious ones first.

Again, sorry if you've lost interest in the past couple of days; I couldn't be online as much as I would have liked recently.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

OK. Then let me rephrase that from "If either of us had the power to make the necessary changes, we could make this world better a thousand ways" to "I could." I can see it easily without omniscience.

LOL You're arguing like a child who, without any understanding of nutrition, thinks that they could make every meal better by serving only cookies and ice cream. The presumption that you understand the workings of the universe better than its creator "easily without omniscience" is beyond laughable.

Let's review the discussion to date. You wrote, "All I can say with 100% certainty is that if the Creator of the universe is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, then we live in the best of all possible universes," and I replied with, "Yet we can see that we do not live in such a world. If either of us had the power to make the necessary changes, we could make this world better a thousand ways" and offered a few off of the top of my head. You scoffed that this was possible, and I pointed out that man has already improved the world.

I still haven't seen a rebuttal to that. If man can make the world better, then this is not the best of all possible worlds.

Was it a perfect world when people got polio?

It was, it is, and it always will be, the best of all possible universes.

If we can't agree that the world is better without polio in it than with it, what is the basis for further discussion about best worlds?

My response was relevant to what you SAID, but apparently you didn't mean "ending hunger" you meant "ending starvation" or maybe just "ending malnutrition."

Going there wasn't helpful to your argument. You very much appeared to be trying to avoid discussing how the world could be made better, in this case, by relieving starvation. The meaning of the expression ending hunger is clear in context, and feeding the hungry would make the world a better place. You chose to deflect from the matter.

But just as "ending hunger" would bring about all kinds of unintended collateral effects, so would "ending starvation" and even "ending malnutrition" (for one thing, you just put all fast food employees out of work).

You're just phoning it in now, right?

Yeah, pretty much all conversations about God become meaningless if it is understood that God does not exist. But it's more engaging, entertaining, and productive to work out the ways that a God COULD rationally exist, rather than to just deny the effort.

What could be true isn't of much interest. Sure, gods could exist, but so could vampires and leprechauns. The possibility of the existence of any of them doesn't matter until things best explained by such creatures are discovered.

Also, like many if not most atheists, I do not say that God does not exist, unless by God somebody means a specific god that is described in mutually exclusive and logically impossible terms. I just say that we don't need that idea because we have no evidence that can only be accounted for by the existence of gods, or even any better accounted for invoking gods, and simpler naturalistic alternatives

As for speculating about gods being a productive activity, I agree, but perhaps not in the way you mean. It has been a good exercise in rigorous thinking and identifying and naming logical fallacies.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Your position, though logically possible, is unnecessarily complicated, that is, not parsimonious. It relies on gods and extremely unlikely possibilities

Do you have a simpler explanation? Or are you going with "There is no explanation" as the simpler alternative? I don't think that one would qualify as "accounting for all relevant observed facts."

Yes, I do have a simpler explanation than yours for why we have what appears to be needless suffering in the world, and I gave it: A godless universe.

It is a better fit to the facts. It accounts for such things as such as predation and childhood leukemia without invoking the existence of a god, which is a hugely complicating and unnecessary factor with no explanatory or predictive power, one which also creates the theodicy problem for the believer.

You choose to dispense with the theodicy problem by dispensing with God; I choose to keep God and resolve the problem instead.

You also chose to add that this is the best of all possible worlds, a faith based position you imply follows from the assumption that an omni-god (including omnibenevolent) exists. As a result, you have firmly entrenched yourself in defense of a position that appears to be self-evidently incorrect and is easily challenged.

And yes, the theodicy problem evaporates when gods are removed from the equation, but becomes an insurmountable problem if one assumes an omni-god.

You say that you have resolved the problem, but if so, only with scoffing, taunts, deflection, equivocation, and what-ifs. I still say that it would be easy to make the world a better place with the resource available to an omni-god.

The point of claiming that any of us could make this a better world given the power was not to blaspheme your god, but to indicate how we know that no such god is looking over us.

Occam's Razor isn't a proof of truth, it's just a guideline. Sometimes, a more complex explanation IS, in fact, the correct one--it just saves time and effort to explore more parsimonious ones first.

According to Occam, at all times, the working hypothesis should be the most parsimonious one that accounts for all relevant observations. We don't really need to be told that. There is no value in making our hypothesis more complex than that until it needs be adapted to account for a new observation not consistent with the older hypothesis.

Good discussion.