Listen folks, here's the rule of Priority...

I have to disagree with you that you have proved my argument wrong - it's far from the truth.
You have proved that I don't have any solid evidence to prove I'm right. After all, you have not presented any evidence yourself for either side, since I have never heard you conclude that either "thanking god is reasonable" or "thanking god is not reasonable".
If you had proved my argument wrong, you would have concluded that "thanking god is reasonable". The burden of proof lies on me in terms of "Here's the Rule of Priority", since I put that statement of mine forward, but you did not actually PROVE me wrong.
It would be beneficial if we can at least agree on this one, as it will create some sort of common ground. Please tell me we agree on something.

I said that I had concluded that you were wrong.

joefromchicago wrote:

I said that I had concluded that you were wrong.

In other words, it's your personal view and you don't have any proof - the same thing you claim about me.

I was wrong in what context?
1. My arguments themselves are wrong/false? (Because there's proof of the opposite.)
2. I was wrong because I thought my evidence is strong enough to prove my point? (Point: It's irrational to thank god. Evidence: God doesn't interfere because ... ... ...)

(Let's get this out of the way first before we continue with our intended conversation. The minimum prerequisite to an intelligent debate is for both of us to agree what outcome constitutes being right or wrong. Otherwise our further discussions will be pointless. I'm sure we can agree on this?)

Absent such a deduction (and I am quite confident that you cannot produce such a deduction), the best you can do is to argue that gods habitually do not interfere in "small" matters; i.e. that they don't do so as a rule. That argument would require an inductive demonstration of what gods normally do, such that we could predict, with a high degree of confidence, that those gods would act in the same way in the future.

I'm absolutely tired of hearing people thank god for things they have accomplished...
It's extremely awkward to see a top notch athlete thank god for winning a game (somebody who many people idolize and look up to)... as if god would be eager to constantly watch over an ego-driven multi-millionaire and make sure he wins some meaningless GAME. Think about it for a second... there are children dying from hunger every day...

So, here's the rule of priority, and for the sake of argument, let's assume that god exists in the first place:
If god is really "good and loving", he would make sure that IF he can interfere and HELP in our daily lives, he would help the most needy first. In other words, he would save children that die from hunger first. Then he would possibly prevent people from dying in accidents, ect... Are you with me so far?

So, only if there are ABSOLUTELY NO people who die (or physically suffer) in a given day, only then there would be a VERY SMALL chance that god would help a multi-millionaire win a meaningless game... That's my rule of Priority, so whenever you thank god for unimportant and trivial things, you obviously have no clue what you're doing.

On the flip side (in a sarcastic way), if you accomplish something and thank god for it, it actually MUST have been some sort of a miracle from heaven... since an intelligent person would simply attribute it to hard work and persistence.

God's priority is not to make sure that we are FED but that we are happy.

Scott777ab wrote:

God's priority is not to make sure that we are FED but that we are happy.

How do you know that?

c_logic wrote:

Scott777ab wrote:

God's priority is not to make sure that we are FED but that we are happy.

How do you know that?

Cause that is what the BIBLE says.

Whenever one thanks god, they are putting forward a subtle statement that says "There is god" and "He chose to help me instead of helping a child who starved to death from hunger".

Seldom are my predictions vindicated so thoroughly. I wrote:

For a Christian, then, there is a perfectly reasonable answer to the question "how do you know that?" -- it's because god said so.

Of course, it's the next question that gets Christians into some logical difficulties: how do you know that the bible contains the word of god? It turns out that the answer to that question is also "because god said so."

Why can't god do both?

Reading and remaining mute. . . :wink:

Well, this doesn't prove much, quite frankly. It simply explains that (some) Christians refer to Bible as the "word of god". After all, many Christians don't. It's a poor example.

Joefromchicago, it's almost as if you are trying to prove to me that some people trully believe that thanking god is reasonable. That no doubt is the correct assumption, and therefore the reason for this thread.
However, I'm not arguing that... I'm arguing whether people have enough credible evidence to make the statement "Thank you god..." a reasonable part of the public culture.

After all, this type of behavior is a BIG part of our culture and the time has come to question the basis for it. In addition, that statement is put forward as a factual/rational one, therefore I would assume the person has some good evidence to support it?
The person doesn't go "I.... guess.... that there is some chance that god might have helped me accomplish this...." They go "Thank you god for all you have given us..."
Therefore, the question is: Is that behavior rational? Is it substantiated? Is there enough evidence to make it a reasonable statement?

Please...
Let's get away from what God would/would not do. I have already mentioned that this is a slippery slope for any side trying to argue this and that we don't need to discuss "the rule of priority" anymore.

Instead, let's focus on whether we have anough credible evidence to justify "thanking god" at this day and age, and make people who do it appear that they know what they're talking about.
They state "God helped me accomplish this...". It's a statement of confidence and belief that the statement is rational. I need evidence.
Otherwise I will simply look at the behavior as rediculous and unsubstantiated, and realize that it's not apropriate as part of public culture.

c_logic wrote:

Well, this doesn't prove much, quite frankly. It simply explains that (some) Christians refer to Bible as the "word of god". After all, many Christians don't. It's a poor example.

"Many" Christians don't view the bible as the "word of god?" Like who?

If now you want to argue that it is unreasonable for anyone to expect god's assistance, then that would be an entirely different argument.

If you now want to argue that all expressions of gratitude for god's assistance are unreasonable, then I suppose you will have to convince us that god does not assist people under any circumstance. I await your proof.

I have talked to a lot of different Christians, and I can tell you that there are different "degrees" when it comes to being a Christian. There are very conservative Christians who consider the bible to be the Word of God. There are more moderate Christians who think of the bible as "symbolic", rather than fact / Word of God. There are extremely "loose" Christians as well who are barely religious.

Anyway, I don't think this is very important, so let's focus on the ponts I bring up below - let's discuss those issues.

Not really. It would still be the same argument, but different evidence.
Although the thread is titled "...rule of priority..", this is simply one of the evidence I tried to present. I understand that I made this confusing, but I'm no best-selling book author, and this is a simple discussion board.
Here's what was really going on:

Main Argument: Thanking god as part of public culture is rediculous and unsubstantiated. It should NOT be part of our public culture.
Evidence: God doesn't interfere in our lives because it defeats the purpose. Interfering leads to contamination of the truth.

Evidence (and this thread's title): If god DID interfere, God would have a better sense of priority, because a human life is seen as the most precious thing. It's supposed to be a gift from god.

I think that this is some DAMN GOOD evidence, however, there is no ACTUAL proof and we don't have to discuss it further.

Now I'm trying to bring in new/fresh evidence.

Let's focus on the following:

joefromchicago wrote:

If you now want to argue that all expressions of gratitude for god's assistance are unreasonable, then I suppose you will have to convince us that god does not assist people under any circumstance. I await your proof.

Technically you should have said "Convince Me", and not "Convince Us". You're giving the impression that you have a big, cheering crowd behind you, and that I'm completely alone and hopeless trying to convey that "thanking god is rediculous" in the public context.

Anyway, why do I need to prove anything? Isn't it obvious that public gratitude towards god is rediculous? From a common sense perspective?

(I already see that you used "protective" wording as to shield yourself and make it more difficult for me. "All" and "Any" make it almost impossible to prove things in ANY debate. However, I'm eager to continue and see where we'll be going... Step on the throttle, partner! )

So, can you give me a "go" to answer your last two questions/comments? I just want to make sure we're on the same page, and that we'll have a "clean" debate.