Did Laidlaw, Broun, Stoppard, Chesterton...?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
1) "God exists whether or not men may choose to believe in Him. The reason why many people do not believe in God is not so much that it is intellectually impossible to believe in God, but because belief in God forces that thoughtful person to face the fact that he is accountable to such a God." -Robert A. Laidlaw; 2) "Nobody talks so constantly about Go ...[text shortened]... ly.
Thanks for recognizing that we're attempting to have a conversation, not a college debate.

I DID give you specific reasons. Go back to the beginning and re-read my posts.

And no this is not a conversation, it only starts being a conversation when you start using your own words and engage instead of just posting out of context quotes at us.

And no this is not a formal debate, however it's still a debate, this is a discussion with
various sides, it's a debate.
That doesn't mean it can't also be a conversation.

But for it to be anything you have to engage, and actually read what others post.

Try again, from the beginning.

I mean my post giving specific reasons why they were all wrong was the very next post after your op...

How the hell can you have possibly missed it?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
A Christian is called such on the basis of his faith and confidence in the efficacy of the work completed on the cross by the Lord Jesus Christ.

A theist is called such on the basis of his belief in a god of some sort.

An atheist is called such on the basis of his decision regarding the question of God.

If atheism is a once-for-all matter, you mig ...[text shortened]... enough: you must proselytize the world around you.

You simply cannot leave well enough alone.

See my post to GB at the bottom of the last page.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I DID give you specific reasons. Go back to the beginning and re-read my posts.

And no this is not a conversation, it only starts being a conversation when you start using your own words and engage instead of just posting out of context quotes at us.

And no this is not a formal debate, however it's still a debate, this is a discussion with
variou ...[text shortened]... l wrong was the very next post after your op...

How the hell can you have possibly missed it?

Originally posted by googlefudge

Did Laidlaw, Broun, Stoppard, Chesterton and Goethe get it wrong?

Yes. They got it wrong.

1) "God exists whether or not men may choose to believe in Him. The reason why many people
do not believe in God is not so much that it is intellectually impossible to believe in God, but because
belief in God forces that thoughtful person to face the fact that he is accountable to such a God."
-Robert A. Laidlaw;

"God exists whether or not men may choose to believe in Him. ..."
Well that's wrong strait off the bat. A gods existence MAY be independent of whether or not people
believe that god exists, but to assert that "God exists" in the definitive is just plain wrong, and dishonest.

"... The reason why many people do not believe in God is not so much that it is intellectually impossible to
believe in God, but because belief in God forces that thoughtful person to face the fact that he is
accountable to such a God."
Oh dear, yet another theist pontificating wildly about what they think atheists must think without actually
asking any of them. I, and many atheists like me, don't believe in the existence of gods because there is
no evidence that gods exist, and plenty that they don't. In short, I don't believe in god because god does
not actually exist. period.
However if such a god as the one you believe in did exist and there was sound reason and evidence to justify
believing that your god existed then I would believe in the existence of your god even though I would find your
gods existence to be an unpleasant fact.

So Laidlaw got it wrong.

2) "Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God."
-Heywood Broun;

Well I don't have any statistics on this, however I would generally expect that a theist who regularly goes to
church and really genuinely believes that god/s exist will mention and talk about (or to) gods a deal more often
than people who don't go to church or believe god/s exist.

Certainly in my personal experience, god/s are almost never mentioned either by me or my friends or family (almost
all atheists) except when the subject is brought up by a theist. Gods are not relevant to atheists, if the subject comes
up at all when talking between ourselves it usually talking about the PEOPLE who believe in such wacky things as gods,
not about the gods themselves.

So unless you can present statistics that say otherwise...

Broun got it wrong too.

3) "Atheism is a crutch for those who cannot bear the reality of God."
-Tom Stoppard;

Um... Just no... atheism is simply the label for the absence of theism, and isn't a crutch of any kind.
And gods don't exist...

So Stoppard is wrong too.

4) "If there were no God, there would be no Atheists."
-G. K. Chesterton;

Wrong. If there were no THEISTS (i.e. people who BELIEVE that gods exist) then there would be no need for the
label 'atheist' because everyone would be one.

So a pithy but wrong for G. K. Chesterton.

5) "The greatest act of faith takes place when a man finally decides that he is not God."
- Johann Wolfgang Goethe;

What about women?

Um, no... The greatest act of faith takes place when a person believes the most implausible thing on the least amount
of evidence or against the greatest amount of contrary evidence... or something along those lines.

Also "... finally decides that he is not god." ... I for one have never believed that I am god, or even a god...
Although that might be fun for a bit...
People who think that they are gods tend to end up in insane asylums... or running large multinationals or countries...
Not thinking that you are a god when you are not is perfectly rational...
The leap of faith would be thinking that you were a god.

So Goethe is wrong too.

So that's 5 for 5, all wrong.

Next?"
____________________________________

"In short, I don't believe in god because god does
not actually exist. period." -googlefudge

A predisposition against even the remote possibility eliminates the possibility of serious discussion.

"So that's 5 for 5, all wrong." -googlefudge

As always I respect your right to an opinion, even when it's summarily dismissive.

Originally posted by googlefudge
See my post to GB at the bottom of the last page.

This response (referencing your other response) does not even remotely have anything to do with what I said.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes, and it's a trivially easy question to answer, and one that we have answered
many times over.

Were you listening?

People believe in god and believe god tells them to kill gays and so they kill gays...

People believe in god and believe god tells them to kill the infidel and so they fly planes into skyscrapers...

People believe in god and ...[text shortened]... king this question now? Because it makes you look like you are not listening to anything we say.

"Could you stop asking this question now? Because it makes you look like you are not listening to anything [we] say." -googlefudge

Vision's impaired but ears work better than when they were brand new; they even hear between the lines and in the dark.

["we"]:?

Did Wilson get it right?

"If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactions Â… Â… Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else." -Douglas Wilson

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Vision's impaired but ears work better than when they were brand new; they even hear between the lines and in the dark.

But you usually act like you are totally deaf. You ask a question, ignore any responses, then ask the question again - without even bothering to fix any glaring errors in the question that have been pointed out to you.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But you usually act like you are totally deaf. You ask a question, ignore any responses, then ask the question again - without even bothering to fix any glaring errors in the question that have been pointed out to you.

Did Socrates get it right?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Did Socrates get it right?

Did he get what right?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]Did Wilson get it right?

"If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means ...[text shortened]... ankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water.[/i] And nothing else." -Douglas Wilson[/b]

Do you think that Wilson got it right, GB?

Originally posted by twhitehead

Did he get what right?

Socratic Teaching

"The oldest, and still the most powerful, teaching tactic for fostering critical thinking is Socratic teaching. In Socratic teaching we focus on giving students questions, not answers. We model an inquiring, probing mind by continually probing into the subject with questions. Fortunately, the abilities we gain by focusing on the elements of reasoning in a disciplined and self-assessing way, and the logical relationships that result from such disciplined thought, prepare us for Socratic questioning. Thankfully, there is a predictable set of relationships that hold for all subjects and disciplines. This is given in the general logic of reasoning, since every subject has been developed by those who had:

• shared goals and objectives (which defined the subject focus)
• shared questions and problems (whose solution they pursued)
• shared information and data (which they used as an empirical basis)
• shared modes of interpreting or judging that information
• shared specialized concepts and ideas (which they used to help them organize their data)
• shared key assumptions (that gave them a basis from which to collectively begin)
• a shared point of view (which enabled them to pursue common goals from a common framework)

Each of the elements represents a dimension into which one can delve in questioning a person. We can question goals and purposes. We can probe into the nature of the question, problem, or issue that is on the floor. We can inquire into whether or not we have relevant data and information. We can consider alternative interpretations of the data and information. We can analyze key concepts and ideas. We can question assumptions being made. We can ask students to trace out the implications and consequences of what they are saying. We can consider alternative points of view. All of these, and more, are the proper focus of the Socratic questioner.

As a tactic and approach, Socratic questioning is a highly disciplined process. The Socratic questioner acts as the logical equivalent of the inner critical voice which the mind develops when it develops critical thinking abilities. The contributions from the members of the class are like so many thoughts in the mind. All of the thoughts must be dealt with and they must be dealt with carefully and fairly. By following up all answers with further questions, and by selecting questions which advance the discussion, the Socratic questioner forces the class to think in a disciplined, intellectually responsible manner, while yet continually aiding the students by posing facilitating questions.

A Socratic questioner should:
a) keep the discussion focused
b) keep the discussion intellectually responsible
c) stimulate the discussion with probing questions
d) periodically summarize what has and what has not been dealt with and/or resolved
e) draw as many students as possible into the discussion."

Paul, R. and Elder, L. (April 1997). Foundation For Critical Thinking,
Online at website: www.criticalthinking.org)

Originally posted by Great King Rat

Do you think that Wilson got it right, GB?

Did Wilson get it right?

"If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactions Â… Â… Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else." -Douglas Wilson

Originally posted by Great King Rat
"Do you think that Wilson got it right, GB?"

Hey, GKR, pretty much except for the Mountain Dew and Dr. Pepper; I'd prefer Canada Dry Ginger Ale (Diet) or Hard Cider.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]Did Wilson get it right?

"If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means ...[text shortened]... cept for the Mountain Dew and Dr. Pepper; I'd prefer Canada Dry Ginger Ale (Diet) or Hard Cider.[/b]

Yeah, I agree with what he's trying to communicate as well.

Do you think that what he's saying here - if true - is problematic? In other words, if what's he's saying is true, would that make you feel uneasy?

Originally posted by Great King Rat
Yeah, I agree with what he's trying to communicate as well.

Do you think that what he's saying here - if true - is problematic? In other words, if what's he's saying is true, would that make you feel uneasy?

"Do you think that what he's saying here - if true - is problematic?" -GKR

"If there is no God... "

With Wilson's thesis, antithesis, synthesis and tentative conclusion... Yep, as long as Great King Rat doesn't lose the "If".

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"Do you think that what he's saying here - if true - is problematic?" -GKR

[b]"If there is no God... "

With Wilson's thesis, antithesis, synthesis and tentative conclusion... Yep, as long as Great King Rat doesn't lose the "If".[/b]

"Do you think that what he's saying here - if true - is problematic?"

Well, duh, ofcourse "if"! I mean, the idea of god being a manmade construct! Pff! Ridiculous!