DescentBB

A repost from a while ago but worthy of another look:

Navy SEALs are always taught:

1) Keep your priorities in order and,

2) Know when to act without hesitation.

A Navy SEAL was attending some college courses between assignments.
He had completed missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

One of the courses had a professor who was an avowed atheist and a
member of the ACLU. One day he shocked the class when he came in,
looked to the ceiling, and flatly stated, \"God, if you are real,
then I want you to knock
me off this platform. I'll give you exactly 15 minutes.\"

The lecture room fell silent. You could hear a pin drop. Ten
minutes went by and the professor proclaimed, \"Here I am God. I'm
still waiting.\"

It got down to the last couple of minutes when the SEAL got out of
his chair, went up to the professor, and cold-cocked him; knocking
him off the platform. The professor was out cold. The SEAL went
back to his seat and
sat there, silently. The other students were shocked and stunned and
sat there looking on in silence.

The professor eventually came to, noticeably shaken, looked at the
SEAL and asked, \"What the H*** is the matter with you? Why did you
do that?\"

The SEAL calmly replied, \"God was too busy today protecting
America's soldiers who are protecting your right to say stupid S**^
and act like an A$$****. So He sent me.\"

A classic case of: 'Be careful what you wish for'....or...'God works in mysterious ways'.

I'm afraid chipper beat you to it.

Top Wop wrote:The SEAL calmly replied, "God was too busy today protecting
America's soldiers who are protecting your right to say stupid S**^
and act like an A$$****. So He sent me."

Apocryphal story, no doubt. Because we all know that in the USA, his actions would result in litigation for millions of dollars, as well as an assault conviction, dishonourable discharge and court martial.

Also, we know Navy Seals aren't ★■◆●ing morons. This mainly due to the "No ★■◆●ing Morons" portion of the selection process.

What your post is designed to do, is poke fun at people who deny the existence of god. It's a pretty poor effort if you ask me: what parts of "omniscient" and "omnipresent" do you now understand?

Surely it's blasphemy to stand-in for God, and perform violence in His name? Especially when the request was to "knock me off this platform". Complying would merely result in walking up to him, and pushing him off the platform. No need to be a violent fuckhead about it.

All this story does is show how violent, nasty and stupid religious nutcases truly are.

oh man, not this joke again.
as you can see from the last-time (thx MD), it's a very loaded topic (i present Mobius as exhibit B). This is being moved to E&C, and i wouldn't be surprised if Lothar moves it further to NHB.
(oh, and if you disagree, i don't mind discussing it in public if that's your thing)

edit: oops, i fergot to leave a shadow in the cafe

And typical DBB stupidity ensues...

First an unnecessary move to E&C for what is supposed to be clearly a joke thread. After the influence of a single trolling post.

Second, Mobius instead of realizing that it is only a joke, sees it as an attack on himself due to his insecurity and blatatnly paints me a \"violent, nasty, and stupid religious nutcase that I truely am\" in retaliation.

The retard disease must be contageous today.

the first time this joke was posted the resulting heated discussion got it moved from the cafe. Obviously it's still a hot issue, the discussion is still hot. Mobius was simply the start of the disagreements, i was going to verbalise my disagreement with the joke as well, Tricord would probabaly also chime in. It's more than just Mobius who had contentions with the joke. You can either call everyone who voices their opinion against your \"just an innocent joke\" thread Trolls, or i can call your thread a \"Troll Thread\" and see all the people who respond in a heated manner \"Biters\".

The joke is a political and religious grenade. If someone posted a trolling joke demeaning Religious Conservatives that attracted a few scornful replys - it too should be either deleted or moved.
Basically this Joke is so politically and religiously loaded, it's a troll thread. Look how people reacted to it last time? look how people are reacting to it this time?
So, it's a troll thread. but that's ok! It shouldn't be deleted because deleting threads makes people angry as ★■◆●!
so i moved it somewhere where troll threads are generally debated in full - E&C.

also: Mobius didn't directly call you a nutcase. I took it as calling the Navy SEAL in the joke a religious nutcase.

AND I'M NOT A RETARD AS MUCH AS YOU ARE A TOTAL FART HEAD!!@!

In the theme of Mobius, all this really proves is that so-called miracles are really invented by man. And I think that ascribing conditions to God like being \"too busy\" really sells the concept of God short.

Top Wop wrote:And typical DBB stupidity ensues.

Oh, come on now. Nothing was deleted, something was moved. So what?

As for Mobius, heh! We had to put up with the "Bible Sticker", now, as I warned them then, they have to put up with jokes from the other side. Fair is fair. But "putting up with" doesn't mean he has to LIKE it, and I have no problems with him saying he doesn't like it.

Everything is cool, no one is being oppresed. And besides, you can take comfort in the fact that Palzon has told us this board is a nest of conservatisim!!!!

/me thinks God proved his existance (plus grace and wisdom, that is) more by not hitting that professor. I mean, what kind of God would that be who'd listen to every idiot?

Yea Diedel, why would God waste his time by proving to everyone that he exists...you're a complete idiot. It was a funny joke but one that wouldn't happen because Seals aren't the complete nutjobs that make up the rest of the religious world.

Zuruck wrote:Yea Diedel, why would God waste his time by proving to everyone that he exists...you're a complete idiot.

Maybe because he puts the responsibility for having faith on us, rather than on himself.

I'm sorry, but that was hilarious. I'm an atheist and I still think it was funny.

roid wrote:the first time this joke was posted the resulting heated discussion got it moved from the cafe. Obviously it's still a hot issue, the discussion is still hot. Mobius was simply the start of the disagreements, i was going to verbalise my disagreement with the joke as well, Tricord would probabaly also chime in. It's more than just Mobius who had contentions with the joke. You can either call everyone who voices their opinion against your "just an innocent joke" thread Trolls, or i can call your thread a "Troll Thread" and see all the people who respond in a heated manner "Biters".

The joke is a political and religious grenade. If someone posted a trolling joke demeaning Religious Conservatives that attracted a few scornful replys - it too should be either deleted or moved.
Basically this Joke is so politically and religiously loaded, it's a troll thread. Look how people reacted to it last time? look how people are reacting to it this time?
So, it's a troll thread. but that's ok! It shouldn't be deleted because deleting threads makes people angry as ****!
so i moved it somewhere where troll threads are generally debated in full - E&C.

also: Mobius didn't directly call you a nutcase. I took it as calling the Navy SEAL in the joke a religious nutcase.

AND I'M NOT A RETARD AS MUCH AS YOU ARE A TOTAL FART HEAD!!@!

Im not peeved at your mod work. Im peeved that I had posted this joke in 3 other forums and it did not result in a bunch of whiny posters (edit: ONE whiny poster) getting their panties in a bunch because they want to turn a stupid joke into a political/religious discussion. This is what I mean by typical DBB stupidity: people taking ★■◆● too seriously and over the top. In this case taking a stupid joke and trying to make political garbage out of it. Im sick of it. Just post a LOL or a witty response, not some over-the-top thesis and MOVE ON. If you want to make political crap talk over a silly joke, at least have the decency to start a new thread about it and dont start thread-crapping into other peoples threads. Thats all im trying to say.

Now sorry for the drama, but this really pisses me off.

I'll take the nutjob for $1000, Alex.

roid, why do you hate America? (inside joke for those not playing the home game)

I can't even think of the last time that I laughed at a copy and pasted forum joke, or an e-mail forward for that matter.

peh, if there were a \"i certify i am of sound mind\" clause on the DBB registation page - there'd be 2/3rds less members!
come on, you know you love the \"typical DBB stupidity\"

Funny concept, poor delivery. Just like the aforementioned sticker, really. The classic scenario of \"guy says God should do a certain thing, the thing happens through some not-miraculous-looking action, action is claimed as driven by God\" can be made funny given the proper setting. The guy getting clobbered by a military dude is a good start, but the punchline is weak. Try again.

Now, the scenario is worth discussing in a non-joke context as well -- could God act in that way? Would that make sense as God's MO? Can things be \"miraculous\" even though they have perfectly rational human-driven (or even naturalistic) explanations? I don't blame people for wanting to discuss those questions, because whether or not you intended them to be discussed, they are lingering right below the surface in that joke.

It's always interesting to see the way people react to those questions being introduced. For example, Mobi responds by saying this story shows certain people are \"violent, nasty and stupid\" after acknowleding that it is not, in fact, a true story (so it shouldn't be showing anything about any non-fictional character!) Others have taken to calling one another \"idiots\" because they have a difference of opinion, and we all know a differing opinion makes you an idiot.

Yep... DBB stupidity. It's just another part of this board's character.

I think that the word \"miracle\" can be used loosely to mean any sort of unordinary yet extraordinary event. But when people talk about miracles in a technical sense, they aren't talking about these types of events. Somebody who says that miracles don't exist isn't denying the above definition. They are denying that there was some sort of supernatural occurence.

So, I suppose that God could make something happen that seemed miraculous (something like the loose definition) naturalistically through deterministic means, but I don't think that it qualifies for a bona fide miracle in that there was no supernatural clash with the natural world (except for the original creation of the world).

Lothar wrote:Can things be "miraculous" even though they have perfectly rational human-driven (or even naturalistic) explanations?

I highly recommend C. S. Lewis' book "Miracles"

I would say that yes, of course God can work through Nature and humans, and this is, according to the Biblical record, by FAR the most common method.

Sometimes I think a simple rainstorm can be a Miracle. Which does NOT mean that if you couldn't trace the natural causes of that rainstorm. But God created all nature, and so the fact that Nature exists at all is a Miracle, and the fact that it rained in a certain place on a certain day was part of the grand plan.

HOWEVER, while this is a fine point for Thesists to recognize, it's certainly not an opinion that would sway anyone who wasn't already convinced. And it wasn't meant to.

And, of course, even though God works in this subtle way much more frequently, it doesn't exclude the occasional event when He steps in and disturbes nature in a much more spectacular fashion.

Must be easy to run your life as a complete delusion. Any time something happens you can just tag it to God and be done with it? Jesus, grow up and accept things as the way they are. Why does water have to evaporate, condense, and then fall again...couldn't God just make water fall out of the sky if he wanted rain? Just doesn't make sense to believe in a higher power...if you feel like there is somewhere to go after you die fine I guess...but to believe that he controls the natural functions of earth just seems pretty illogical.

Zuruck wrote:grow up and accept things as the way they are. Why does water have to evaporate, condense, and then fall again...couldn't God just make water fall out of the sky if he wanted rain? Just doesn't make sense to believe in a higher power

Kilarin wrote:HOWEVER, while this is a fine point for Thesists to recognize, it's certainly not an opinion that would sway anyone who wasn't already convinced. And it wasn't meant to.

A automatically included you in the "not already convinced" crowd Zuruck.

Dude. It wasn't God. It was a guy named Bob. I talked to him the other day. He told me all about how he controls nature and whatnot. It's really fascinating stuff. Did you know that if ice cream has too high of a fat content, it freezes at a lower temperature and your tongue gets so cold you can't even taste it? Yep. Bob told me that. He controls nature.

Hey Suncho, didn't you go to Indylan? I remember you getting your coolant water on your leg or something...that was a fun time. As for you post, right, I knew this guy named Bill, and he said the same thing, and he didn't have any evidence, but I believe him.

Kilarin, I didn't read the book, but I read an online review in the link that you posted.

J F Foster wrote:Lewis then systematically dismantles the worldview that tends to most cradle apriori miracle rejection, naturalism. He compellingly shows that naturalism is a worldview that cannot stand up to philosophical scrutiny. Key to Lewis's presentation is his argument that naturalism can be demonstrated to be false in its complete rejection of supernaturalism merely by the reality of reason. Logic and reason of the mind, by themselves, are supernatural acts that cannot be explained or accounted for in nature, as naturalism demands. Supernaturalism, according to Lewis is not only possible, but pervasive since the act of logical thinking itself is supernatural in origin.

If this is his first premise, then the rest of his argument isn't going to be very strong at all. I don't doubt that in his time this might have sounded better, but in this day and age there is nothing unreasonable about considering the possibility that thought is entirely natural, thanks to the fact that our scientific knowledge of the way the mind works has vastly increased since then.

Zuruck wrote:Hey Suncho, didn't you go to Indylan? I remember you getting your coolant water on your leg or something...that was a fun time.

Yeah. There was a lightning storm and the power went out. My water pump was plugged into a different power strip than the rest of my computer and when the power came on, the water pump power strip didn't come back on while my main one did. So I was playing D3 and the water cooling my processor started to boil. The pressure built up and the tube popped off spraying boiling water onto my leg. Good times...

Zuruck wrote:As for you post, right, I knew this guy named Bill, and he said the same thing, and he didn't have any evidence, but I believe him.

Dude... Bob would not appreciate that. Why must people like you always mock legitimate beliefs based on reality? ;)

J F Foster wrote:Logic and reason of the mind, by themselves, are supernatural acts that cannot be explained or accounted for in nature, as naturalism demands.

Jeff250 wrote:If this is his first premise, then the rest of his argument isn't going to be very strong at all.

Lewis' argument is actually much better stated than the reviewers brief summary, and a bit more complex. It boils down to, if our reason developed through natural selection (irrational causes), then there is not necessarily any reason to trust it. Natural selection will give us brains that improve survival, but that does not require that our "reasoning" process actually tell us the truth about the world. To adopt a naturalist example: If thinking that every shadow in the forest is a god or demon keeps us from wandering into dangerous places, then natural selection will select for that just fine. It doesn't matter if it's true, just if it works.

To quote Lewis:

C. S. Lewis in Miracles wrote:All possible knowledge, then, depends on the validity of reasoning. If the feeling of certainty which we express by words like must be and therefore and since is a real perception of how things outside our own minds really "must" be, well and good. But if this certainty is merely a feeling in our own minds and not a genuine insight into realities beyond them--if it merely represents the way our minds happen to work, then we can have no knowledge.

Two much more detailed discussions of Lewis' "argument from reason" can be found at:
http://apologetics.johndepoe.com/afr.html and http://faculty.winthrop.edu/craigheadh/articles/csl.htm

Now, before we get into another long debate, I'd like to state up front that I do not find this "argument from reason" entirely satisfactory. I don't disagree with it, but I feel that the naturalist argument that natural selection is most likely to create minds that respond "rationally", while not entirely adequate, at least "reasonable". Furthermore, so few people now actually seem to think rationally at all, that the argument has lost some of its strength.

I STILL recommend the book, even to an Athiest. He makes a lot of powerful points, and the "Argument from reason" is only one of them, and even if flawed has merit. Lewis was an excellent writer and the kind of thinker that todays society rarely produces. So even if you disagree with him, You'd probably enjoy the book.

BUT, I was NOT recommending the book to convince atheists to become theists. I like Mere Christianity much better for that. Lothars question, "could God act in that way?" is primarily a Theist to Theist question. It has no MEANING unless you already believe in a God. And for a Theist, Miracles is an EXCELLENT discussion on the nature of nature and when and how God interferes with it.

Kilarin wrote:Lothars question, "could God act in that way?" is primarily a Theist to Theist question.

Prezactly.

If you don't believe in the existance of any god or gods, it doesn't make much sense to debate about the nature or capabilities of the aforementioned being(s). That would be like me talking about how my children behave -- I don't have any children, so it's a nonsense question.

That's why "I know some guy named Bill" or "I know some guy named Bob" seems like such a clever response to the question "could God act that way?". To some people, the question of how God would act boils down to "does God exist?" To others, the existance of God is already established through other evidence, so the question is one of God's nature rather than His existance: could God perform miracles through natural or human means?

Different questions for people with different presuppositions. This should not come as a surprise.

Zuruck wrote:Any time something happens you can just tag it to God and be done with it?

That would be both intellectually and theologically irresponsible.

If you decide "God did it", that opens up a whole host of other questions -- how did God do it? Why did God do it? What does this say about the nature of God? If you stop with "God did it", you're lazy.

Similarly, if you decide "it happened naturally" but don't investigate further, you're lazy. "It happened naturally" opens up a whole host of other questions about the applicable natural laws.

And, of course, in both cases, as you continue to investigate you may find reason to change your original assumption.

The problem is not with either initial assumption, but with the "being done with it" because you don't care to investigate further.

Sure, by definition, the question, \"How does the Judeo-Christian God perform miracles?\" is only pertinent to Jews and Christians. But I think that there is an equally interesting question that is all-inclusive: Is the concept of supernatural miracles in itself cogent?