Chronologically and geographically isolated revelation = god is unjust and unfair.

[jmvizanko]

Why would a fair and just super intelligent being only present his miracles and/or messiah to a select few in a specific location eons before and after, as well as around the globe away, from most of the people that ever existed? And then to top it off with, expect everyone to accept a telephone game testimony of these miracles and affirmations of truth? Why would it not make more sense to share with everyone equally any reason to affirm faith in any specific direction, rather than letting such imperfect means be the only source of discovering the truth, let alone the most important truth to know for anyone's soul?

[Meow Mix]

I never reeeeeally got an answer to this in my similar thread "The Warehouse."

Some try to answer but outside the bounds of the premises... others give red herrings or special pleading.

I think, as you probably suspect, the ones who hold those premises don't know, but they still believe. Special pleading Why anyone thinks it's viable is beyond me.

[jmvizanko]

Originally Posted by Meow Mix

I never reeeeeally got an answer to this in my similar thread "The Warehouse."

Some try to answer but outside the bounds of the premises... others give red herrings or special pleading.

I think, as you probably suspect, the ones who hold those premises don't know, but they still believe. Special pleading Why anyone thinks it's viable is beyond me.

Well I apologize if I copied a thread/point you already tried making, even if my thread title kicked your thread title's @$$. I do wish I was able to easily recognize / actually understand the definition of all of these fallacies some of ya'll regularly point out (ad hoc, red herring, special pleading etc...) but I don't.

PS: Do you change your pic like every day? Because you are awfully cute and it isn't fair.

[JustWondering]

Originally Posted by jmvizanko

Why would a fair and just super intelligent being only present his miracles and/or messiah to a select few in a specific location eons before and after, as well as around the globe away, from most of the people that ever existed? And then to top it off with, expect everyone to accept a telephone game testimony of these miracles and affirmations of truth? Why would it not make more sense to share with everyone equally any reason to affirm faith in any specific direction, rather than letting such imperfect means be the only source of discovering the truth, let alone the most important truth to know for anyone's soul?

A rational and fair God would not do things this way. Which is why I am compelled to believe there are no Gods or if there are, they don't care what we do and what we believe. Human ego and fear of death is what drives people to think that divine beings (if they exist) would actually give a crap about us insects one way or another.

[jmvizanko]

Originally Posted by JustWondering

A rational and fair God would not do things this way. Which is why I am compelled to believe there are no Gods or if there are, they don't care what we do and what we believe. Human ego and fear of death is what drives people to think that divine beings (if they exist) would actually give a crap about us insects one way or another.

No argument there.

[Meow Mix]

Originally Posted by jmvizanko

Well I apologize if I copied a thread/point you already tried making, even if my thread title kicked your thread title's @$$. I do wish I was able to easily recognize / actually understand the definition of all of these fallacies some of ya'll regularly point out (ad hoc, red herring, special pleading etc...) but I don't.

PS: Do you change your pic like every day? Because you are awfully cute and it isn't fair.

lol I wasn't complaining, our points were only similar; not exact! Besides, the more times we ask it the more chances we get of... well, MAYBE getting an answer that makes sense.

Eh I just picked up fallacy names from debating so much... I started out as a young earther creationist in my teens and got my @#% handed to me so I had to look up all the things I was being accused of. It's how I learned to avoid fallacies. Learning to avoid fallacies actually de-converted me when I realized I believed stuff based entirely on fallacies, lol.

A red herring is a diversion tactic that's similar to the topic but actually off-topic. It's different from non-sequitor because it's more subtle: it has the appearance of answering the question but actually doesn't because it "switches gears" to another related topic. I think the name is a play on the fact that seeing a red herring would be very distracting or something. Trying to think of an example:

P1: Why does suffering exist?
P2: Because we have free will.
P1: But what about suffering caused by disease?
P2: Our free will gives us the ability to make choices that do harm.

It appears to be on topic -- and it ultimately "is" -- but it's dodging a more specific point, as you can see. That's the red herring :P

Special pleading is a fallacy that makes a "special exception" for something when otherwise rules would apply; often (but not necessarily) by arguing that it happens in an unknowable way.

P1: Why does God allow disease to exist?
P2: Because it's for a greater good.
P1: But if I gave someone a disease on purpose I'd be charged with assault, maybe attempted murder depending on the disease and thrown in jail.
P2: God has some unknowable morally sufficient reason to do so.

The problem with special pleading is that it's a "win-anything" tactic. Anything can be somehow inexplicably true. One might as well retort "Maybe God is inexplicably actually evil..." and it would run around in circles. It's a fallacy, but I have noticed that many, many, MANY theists very much like the special pleading fallacy. The perfect example of special pleading is in the phrase "God works in mysterious ways." You would think that rational people would try to avoid fallacies...

Yes I change my avatar quite a lot because I'm easily bored :P

[jmvizanko]

Originally Posted by meow mix

i started out as a young earther creationist in my teens

roflcopter!

[Meow Mix]

Originally Posted by jmvizanko

roflcopter!

Ha I know.

That's why I find it so frustrating when I also run into the "no true scotsman" fallacy; when theists say that the reason I haven't found God is because I haven't looked hard enough.

I looked damn hard back then when I was losing my faith, I was looking for any excuse to hang onto it.

But I forced myself to examine all of my beliefs (not just my religious ones) for internal and external consistency; made sure I wasn't justifying anything with fallacies, etc....

And by the time that was over I was no longer convinced that a god MUST exist. I am still open to the possibility -- really, the idea is pretty cool! -- but there's just no evidence. Alas! But, if mankind is on our own in this universe, I don't fret: it's also empowering to know that if we want something done we just have to do it. I'm okay now without the "safety net" of a god. Though it would still be neat if it were true (but also that god would have stuff to answer for now that I understand the Problem of Evil).

[Madhuri]

As usual, these questions and rational relate only to certain religious concepts of the Divine.

[Meow Mix]

Originally Posted by Madhuri

As usual, these questions and rational relate only to certain religious concepts of the Divine.

Yep, that's inherent in the title and explanation of the OP.

I've seen proponents of the premises offered though, and never once have I seen them defend themselves.