A request for help from the Board

[loCAtek]

ThX Genr'l that's exactly what I was going to repost for the third time, no need to make it a fourth then.

[Gob]

ROTFL! But seriously.... I'd love to see your response to the question asked (if possible please) rather than the side-step evasion (beautifully done as it was)

If a person's entire output of relevant statements consisted of such as: god is stupid; god is a waste of time; Jesus was just a man; god can't do anything right; god is a cruel bastard and so on.... if that were so, would you diagnose that person as an exemplar of "open minded doubt"?

After all man, you've claimed to know that you don't know and also that you are a practitioner of open-minded doubt.

Love and no kisses
Meade

If a person' entire output of relevant statements consisted of such as you describe, then they would not be worthy of debating.

However, if a person were replying;

God is stupid as he expects us to base our morality, in 2011, on a book, transcribed badly several years after some alleged events in 32 AD, and twisted and distorted by the church for its own ends for two centuries, one which the major and minor sects of Christianity cannot agree on, without thinking "Hmmm... I'm sending all these people to hell as they didn't get my message right, and ate Pagan Easter Ham, (tm) maybe I better do something about it."


Then they are making comments worthy of debate.

I DO hope you are not saying that anyone HERE has made such blanket rejections of your belief without qualifying them?

[Crackpot]

what evidence do you have that it was "transcribed badly"? Most of the sources I've seen have been fairly consistent.

[Gob]

That was an example to illustrate my point to Meade C-P, not a statement.

[MajGenl.Meade]

God is stupid as he expects us to base our morality, in 2011, on a book, transcribed badly several years after some alleged events in 32 AD, and twisted and distorted by the church for its own ends for two centuries, one which the major and minor sects of Christianity cannot agree on, without thinking "Hmmm... I'm sending all these people to hell as they didn't get my message right, and ate Pagan Easter Ham, (tm) maybe I better do something about it."

No, sorry. Still don't see the difference and I don't know what you mean by an "example" - example of what? I combed the above paragraph for a sign of open-mindedness and ... well it just isn't evidenced. Besides being total bollox that is.

The issue wasn't what is or isn't worth debating. Close-minded negators may be as worthy of debate as open-minded doubters - like this:

Why is God stupid rather than people who refuse to base their morality in truth are stupid? An open-minded person would wonder which it was

What evidence is there that the Bible - a series of books written over several thousand years - was "transcribed badly". An open-minded person might think it was transcribed well. Or not.

Why "alleged" and why 32AD? An open-minded person might consider testimony, history and reportage as being what it is - evidence. It's better evidence than there is for Socrates after all

Twisted and distorted - I can see that. Men do twist and distort God's word. Some even call it stupid But of course it hasn't changed despite all the twisting etc [BTW which two centuries was that and what does "the church" refer to? I'm glad that's all over with .... oh nol! Unless it just started in 1812? Still a year of twisting and distorting to look forward to

Major and minor sects of Christianity cannot even agree on it - well they almost 100% agree on what it says although translating from Hebrew and Greek isn't perfect. An open-minded person certainly agrees that they emphasise different parts but without changing the actual message in the least. No sect says it's OK to murder people unless you count insane liars like the Lord's Army in Africa. Some do deny what the Bible clearly says and make up their own "rules" - why they even permit practising bishops to become homosexuals!

I assume "without thinking" refers to the stupid God rather than "the major and minor sects". And how does a person who "knows that they don't know" know what God is thinking? And that what he expects is totally contradictory to his word? It is an extraordinary amount of knowledge which I myself couldn't lay claim to.

Hope you don't mind if I open-mindedly doubt that your mind is open on this subject? Still waiting for a real answer Gob. Is calling God "stupid" a sign of open-mindedness?

It's that 3 in the morning thing again!!
Meade

[Gob]

It's about you wishing to set rules, very heavily biased rules, to push your viewpoint, that's what it is Meade.

It wasn't about "open-mindedness" it was about what is worthy of debate.

You made-up up an example, (totally uncredited and unsupported,) of some alleged posting style which you do not agree with, yes and?

[Gob]

Hope you don't mind if I open-mindedly doubt that your mind is open on this subject? Still waiting for a real answer Gob. Is calling God "stupid" a sign of open-mindedness?

Meade

Yes. Of course it is. If the person takes a position, it doesn't matter what, and is prepared to debate it, then they are open minded. If you say "I believe god exists, and nothing will convince me otherwise, " that is closed minded.

Calling god; "stupid" as in your made up hypothetical, is not closed minded it is a statement of belief.

[MajGenl.Meade]

you say "I believe god exists, and nothing will convince me otherwise, " that is closed minded. Calling god; "stupid" as in your made up hypothetical, is not closed minded it is a statement of belief.

The irony meter just went haywire! But I'll play

First up: when asked in another thread "if it could be proved that God didn't exist, would you change your mind?" I said "yes". Then I added that of course I wasn't bothered about that possibility because truth can never be disproved. Not sure if that's close mind or open mind?

Second: see below

Third: (here's the irony....wait for it) One belief is evidence of closed mind while another belief is evidence of an open mind? You will probably argue that a person calling God stupid is just a belief statement but he might later change his mind - hence is open-minded. However, "nothing will convince me otherwise" is also a belief statement and that person may also change his mind. Stil I think I understand your point.

It's about you wishing to set rules, very heavily biased rules, to push your viewpoint, that's what it is Meade. It wasn't about "open-mindedness" it was about what is worthy of debate. You made-up up an example, (totally uncredited and unsupported,) of some alleged posting style which you do not agree with, yes and?

Well I don't think that was the idea..... What rules? I thought I was challenging the statement "I know that I don't know" compared with a claim to know what was and was not evidence, and suggesting that such (similar) sentiments as those I "made up" were not evidence of open-minded doubt. And please don't get coy and pretend that similar words do not form part of your posting style. I neither agree nor disagree with the style - it's not something that comes under that kind of judgement - but I read it as being evidence of as determined a "nothing will convince me otherwise" as any I might display.

It was a bit of a throw-away and I much prefer debating. So, why do you think it is that a smart person like you (if I can get my tongue out of your trousers) believes that God hasn't made things clear while a smart person like C S Lewis thinks he has? What's the difference?

Meade

[Gob]

It was a bit of a throw-away and I much prefer debating. So, why do you think it is that a smart person like you (if I can get my tongue out of your trousers) believes that God hasn't made things clear while a smart person like C S Lewis thinks he has? What's the difference?

Meade

Good question.

Possibly due to C S Lewis being indocrtinated at an early age?

Clive Staples Lewis was born in Belfast, Ireland, on 29 November 1898. His father was Albert James Lewis (1863–1929), a solicitor whose father, Richard, had come to Ireland from Wales during the mid 19th century. His mother was Florence Augusta Lewis, née Hamilton (1862–1908), known as Flora, the daughter of a Church of Ireland (Anglican) priest.

He was then sent to the health-resort town of Malvern, Worcestershire, where he attended the preparatory school Cherbourg House, which Lewis calls "Chartres" in his autobiography. It was during this time that Lewis abandoned his childhood Christian faith and became an atheist, becoming interested in mythology and the occult.


Lewis was raised in a church-going family in the Church of Ireland. He became an atheist at 15, though he later described his young self as being paradoxically "very angry with God for not existing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis

[loCAtek]

[loCAtek]

While indoctrinated atheists at an early age become ...well, theists. Explain that one.

Akiane, child prodigy, child of God

[MajGenl.Meade]

Yeah look. I'd like to thank everyone who responded to my request for help. I think the paper went OK and the main question (most often asked) was the same here as amongst my indoctrinated Christian friends.

But I don't think "Lifestyle" is the best place to clutter up with discussions about faith, lack of it and so on. That's best under Philosophy and Religion or vice versa and so I shall take my question to Gob there.

Thanks again
Meade

[Gob]

Glad it went well Meade.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Cheers Gob! I didn't want people to shy away from any future requests for help (from me or anyone else) for fear of getting mired into some discussion. It should be what it was intended to be.