Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Atheists Unable to Accept Human Failure?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 380 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:16:18 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Sep 25, 2014 12:34:53 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:17:28 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Sep 25, 2014 12:34:53 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:48:28 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 21, 2012 1:55:27 PM PST
Harold Lime says:
Harold Lime: "And yet you did it."

MMX: (cutting and pasting Harold Lime's original post to me) "To me, your inability to accept that you did not craft an airtight argument shows a lack of maturity as well as reasoning ability."

Harold Lime (cutting and pasting MXX's original post) : "To me, an Atheist's unwillingness to accept the Titanic argument shows lack of maturity."

So you find something wrong with anyone else indulging in the same behavior you do, as I pointed out? Why?

Or had you forgotten your OP already?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:54:57 PM PST
Harold Lime says:
Your misstatement of my counterargument indicates that you're either intellectually dishonest or not nearly as smart as I'd given you credit for being (which is doubtless considerably less smart than you give yourself credit for being).

Further, my counterargument was simple, as that was all that was required to deflate your pseudo-logic (which only you seem incapable of recognizing, likely owing to an immature self-love). This is not the same thing as the grossly simplistic thinking upon which you're hanging your hat.

As to your first point, it was your pseudo-reasoning that I termed simplistic, not your value judgment. If you wish to question the value of calling things "bad," that's all very well and good. But you apparently don't question the value of calling things "good." (Again, perhaps you've forgotten what you wrote in your OP.)

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:57:09 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Sep 25, 2014 12:35:03 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:59:25 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Sep 25, 2014 12:35:03 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 2:03:24 PM PST
The Weasel says:
MMX says:
The Weasel: "None of these REQUIRED that the ship sink to be corrected."

MMX: Of course not, but the sinking highly increased the probability that these design flaws would be corrected.
***
That's always true of disasters. But I don't think you can term the disaster itself as a good thing regardless. Some good comes out of something bad is about as close as can be said I think.

Posted on Dec 21, 2012 2:03:26 PM PST
Harold Lime says:
It may be a bit much for your unnuanced reasoning, but not being "dead wrong" does not make you right.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 2:04:23 PM PST
Harold Lime says:
MMX: "Right. But then I counter-acted with other observations which neutralized your flaws."

I guess I missed those. Would you mind reposting? It should only take you 15 seconds, correct?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 2:06:45 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 21, 2012 2:13:03 PM PST
Harold Lime says:
WHY was your mis-statement a mis-statement? You do have a short memory, don't you?

Me: 'Further, one can't say for certain that "we would've built larger and larger cruise ships, all with the same design flaw." This is an assumption that you don't bother to support.

'Finally, that the sacrifice of lives was a necessary component to averting your "what if" scenario is presented without support. Had the Titanic merely been severely damaged, the same "what if" scenario would still be possible. And it would still be unproven. '

You: 'Your argument reduces to "All assumptions are assumptions.'

Claro?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 2:12:12 PM PST
Bubba says:
Almost all air accidents and disasters result in improvements in aircraft design or procedures, or both.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 2:12:36 PM PST
Harold Lime says:
Yes, but since you haven't exactly displayed sterling logic in this forum, it seemed worth stating.

So your wanting to call the sinking of Titanic "good" neither has nor implies any practical value - the first problem was that your OP was not clear on this, so others have taken a rather natural implication from it.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 2:49:32 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 21, 2012 2:50:41 PM PST
Harold Lime says:
We seem to have ascertained that your initial argument was simply:

1. That there were positive outcomes that can potentially be linked to the sinking of the Titanic. (We'll scrap the "those who perished on the Titanic unwittingly sacrificed their lives for the benefit of all [those who would later be on similarly designed ships that hit icebergs]" bit, since that's where we get into Marvel "What If?" territory and the basis for an effective cost/benefit analysis has not been forthcoming, with the result that many have taken issue with that point.]

2. That the sinking of the Titanic can therefore be termed "GOOD," although it is understood that there is no practical value in doing so and that it may also be termed "BAD," as well as being considered an admixture of the two qualities, or completely absent of them.

I'm afraid I can't fix up the rest of the OP without going into further discussion with you, as there's too much false logic apparent in the subsequent claims. But I'm glad to do what I can! :)

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 3:42:34 PM PST
Bubba says:
I wouldn't consider the sinking of the Titanic as being "good" any more than an airliner crash would be considered to be "good". People took the lessons learned from the sinking of the Titanic to improve the safety of later ships and to improve the survivability of a sinking ship. You can probably blame the lifeboat drill at the beginning of every cruise on the sinking of the Titanic.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 4:01:06 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 21, 2012 4:04:16 PM PST
RE: (1) Accusing someone of being a troll disrupts discussion.

There was no real discussion to disrupt. Sorry to disrupt your trolling efforts.

(2) Accusing someone of playing games disrupts discussion.

Again, there was no real discussion to disrupt. And you're still playing games, as your response indicates.

(3) According to the rules of civil debate, the first one who attempts to disrupt discussion implies that their point is so lacking in structural integrity that they NEED to disrupt discussion in order to win. :)

About seven people have pointed out that your "contribution" here is highly flawed. No one has supported anything you've said. Just look at the inanity of your thread title, and realize that it actually got worse from there.

Deal with it.......

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 4:17:35 PM PST
Historical reasons, mostly. "No religious affiliation" is the fastest growing "religious" group in the US and UK. Australia has an atheist PM. Many would argue guys like Einstein, Hawking, Dawkins, Gould, Sagan, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson ARE, in fact, rising to prominence.

Further, there's no reason religiously minded people cannot also improve their knowledge. Just like there's no guarantee that atheists are going to be totally rational and knowledgeable. The big difference is that atheists won't say "Meh, God must have done it" as an acceptable difference.

If you believe all these tragedies turn into good, why is society still so screwed up? Why are there so many mass shootings if each one leads to improvements? Why are there still genocides and starvation if it leads people to solve those problems?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 4:19:00 PM PST
Greg says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 4:19:23 PM PST
Or maybe if the Titanic didn't spur lifeboat developments, the Lusitania would have. No requirement for the sinking to be a natural disaster, or to occur so far from help.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 4:22:15 PM PST
Please. Grapefruit at least.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 5:25:15 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 21, 2012 5:27:52 PM PST
Songbird says:
Bubba,

Oh, I don't doubt that the Titanic triggered improved processes to the effect of saved lives. I'm not addressing the Titanic specifically, and I know far too little about ships to discuss it. I meant to say it's impossible to gauge the potentiality of improvements without the Titanic event, or any individual event. In other words, do improvements happen because of tragic events? Yes. Would improvements occur without them? Possibly not. Can we determine which specific events will trigger improvements? No. Can we determine if the same improvements would not have occurred without specific events? No. Is it possible that other events, whether less tragic, not tragic, or more tragic, could have resulted in the same improvements? Yes.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 5:40:45 PM PST
Songbird says:
"MMX: The probability that it DID save lives far exceeds the probability that it didn't."

Yes. But it allows for more than just two ways in which your OP could be dead wrong, as worded.

"MMX: Right, but as I've said earlier, if you reject my comparison, this implies that people can improve their machines, but not their political systems. Do you believe this?"

No. But again, I'm not certain people actually reject the comparison as much as the method.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 5:44:26 PM PST
One wonders what tragedies led to Kepler's laws of planetary motion, Newton's laws of motion and theory of gravity, the harnessing of electricity, Bernoulli's principle, or any of a hundred other discoveries and inventions that were NOT the result of a tragic event?

One also wonders why, according to the OP, atheists are the only group that he thinks cannot learn from the mistakes of the past.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 6:00:22 PM PST
tokolosi says:
So.... does the Nazi Holocaust fit into your picture of "good coming from bad"? The same or at least equally compelling arguments could be made to justify Hitler's Final Solution.

Posted on Dec 21, 2012 6:03:07 PM PST
On re-reading the original post, I'd like to point out that atheists are among the least likely to see such a tragedy and not attempt an improvement. That's because atheists are completely unwilling to accept any kind of "It's God'w will" argument. Once you are willing to accept that an invisible, unknowable power shapes every step of every life on the planet, there's really no reason to attempt to improve thing or prevent tragedies, because any disaster or large-scale (or even single) loss of life is "God's will", and only a fool would attempt to prevent that.

However, if you believe we are on our own, and we have nothing but our own smarts and each other to rely on, there is a pretty big impetus to attempt to improve people's lives and prevent future tragedies.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 6:06:53 PM PST
I was wondering who would invoke Godwin's law first. I'll admit I thought about it, but refrained.

I suppose one could argue that nuclear power, advances in radio, radar, aviation, and motor vehicles, as well as the overall shape and stability of Europe today were results of WWII...although not directly a result of the holocaust, since most European countries were content to watch Hitler kill people within his borders (it's much the same case today in places like China, North Korea, and many African nations...kill your own people, just stay in your borders. Other countries tend not to react to massacres that remain confined to the legal boundaries of the government committing them).
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Religion forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  40
Total posts:  380
Initial post:  Dec 18, 2012
Latest post:  Jan 25, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions