10
   

'No God' campaign draws complaint

 
 
Ashers
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2009 04:44 pm
@Setanta,
Thanks.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2009 06:44 pm
@Setanta,

Quote:
All of your sneers and insults don't change the important fact that you make a special case of theism. You express your uncertainty there in a way that you don't express it with regard to fairies, pixies, elves, brownies, etc.


No I do not.

Atheists like to bring up fairies, pixies, elves, brownies, fly spaghetti monsters, CPA's working on Saturn...and all that bullshit because they think it is clever.

It is not.

But anyway, the question being asked in the theism context is: What is the nature of the Reality of existence...and do we know if a GOD is a component...or are there no gods.

You just cannot live with the notion of “I do not know.”

You are a fraud. You are such a fraud, but a very cutey pie fraud whom I love despite his many faults, that you have to find ways not to acknowledge you do not know in any significant way.

I laugh at you!


Quote:

You have said before that you consider the question of theism a special case, dissimilar to questions about the Easter bunny or the tooth fairy. Therefore, when you make your snide remarks about your moral superiority, you are practicing hypocrisy, because this is not a principle which you universally apply.


Oh really. And I suppose you are actually going to quote what I have said, right???

But that is the way frauds like you work...you create a strawman...and then ridicule the strawman.

Show me a cut and paste of something I actually have said...and give me a chance to defend it...or really, you oughta just shut the hell up. Because this pretense that you can accurately paraphrase what I said years ago is just laughable.


Quote:
I don't have a problem with what you believe.


Whew! I cannot tell you how relieved I am about that.


Quote:
I don't care what you think of me for what i do not believe. I find it hilarious, though, that you think you are entitled to claim moral superiority, while resolutely ignoring your own hypocrisy.


Tsk, tsk...that is the hypocrisy of your strawman, Set. Naughty him!

Quote:
Craven once asked you about something to the effect of there being little green proctologists living on Jupiter. You missed the significance of that question altogether. Such a contention is implausible. It is so implausible, that a person can, in all honesty, deny the possibility on the basis of a reasonable estimate of the conditions for supporting life on Jupiter and the proliferation of proctologists throughout the cosmos. That is important because none of us can embrace all knowledge, and we are therefore obliged in many matters to make reasonable judgments on the basis of probabilities. My reasonable judgment based on probabilities is that no description of a god which anyone has ever attempted to retail to me is plausible.


And at some point, you are going to actually quote how I dealt with this...so I'd rather wait for that than to deal with this new strawman!

Quote:
Believe what you like, suspend belief or disbelief in whatever you want. But don't expect to be taken seriously when you come up with your idiotic claim to moral superiority based on your belief or disbelief of choice.


Temper, temper.

If you actually come up with something I said...rather than making stuff up and arguing against it...maybe we can do business. Until then...thanks for the laugh.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2009 07:49 pm
Laugh to your heart's content. The fact remains that you don't apply the same standard across the board. That means that your claim to moral superiority is bullshit--and hypocritical. It's really not my problem, but at the same time, i won't let you forget it.

I can live with "i don't know," that's not a problem. You, however, can't live with the idea that you have no better a position on theism--or any other such issue--than anyone else. You cling desperately to a chimera of superiority. How sad for you.

Don't worry about my temper, Frankie--despite all of your efforts, there is nothing about you that makes me angry. You're not worth the emotional response.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2009 08:12 pm
@Setanta,
Why are you so insistent that I treat the question...

...What is the nature of the Reality of existence?...

...the same way as I treat the question...

...Is Santa Claus real?

Or...are there CPA's working on a moon of Saturn?

What on earth has effected your brain to think that one is hypocritical if he treats those questions differently?

Are you insane...or are you just terminally stupid?

0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2009 08:35 pm
I don't insist upon it, i'm just pointing out that the fact that you do not is evidence of your hypocrisy, and the poverty of your claim to moral superiority. I know it's important to you, for some silly reason, but it just ain't so.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2009 08:03 am
@Setanta,

Quote:
I don't insist upon it, i'm just pointing out that the fact that you do not is evidence of your hypocrisy, and the poverty of your claim to moral superiority. I know it's important to you, for some silly reason, but it just ain't so.


I gotta be honest, Set, you really do not seem stupid enough to actually say this...so I have to wonder what this is all about.

You are actually asserting that in order for me to be consistent as an agnostic...I have to “treat” the question...

...What is the nature of the Reality of existence?...

...the same way as I treat the questions...

...Is Santa Claus real?...or Are there CPA's working on a moon of Saturn?

I ask again: What on earth has effected your brain to think that I am a hypocrite in that instance?

Are you insane...or are you just terminally stupid?
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2009 09:23 am
@Ashers,
Very well written, Ashers.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2009 09:55 am
@Ashers,
Asher...as often happens, some posts just get overlooked. I am delighted Beth mentioned your post. I should have responded earlier. My apologies.



Quote:
Fair enough but the issue I would take with that personally is that being agnostic to the issue seems to give the discussion credence. Like, there is something worthwhile going on here, interesting points are being made by both sides with something to grasp and get hold of being clear to all BUT I'm not swayed either way.

When the terms are so amazingly ambiguous and the arguments are so often nothing more than word salad I think it makes more sense to dismiss the motion altogether. Hence why atheism, rather than theism. Not because atheists make such great retorts but because it's theists who initiate the claims or what my old history teacher called, "superfluous gubbins".


Well, for the most part what is happening is:

Theists are saying: “It is reasonable to assert there is a GOD involved in the Reality of existence.” (Sometimes they say they “know” there is a GOD"sometimes they say “the evidence points to there being a GOD.)

Atheists (many of them) are saying: It is reasonable to assert there are no gods. (Some assert it unequivocally...most say “the evidence points to there being no gods.)

Agnostics are saying: It is not reasonable to assert there is a GOD...nor is it reasonable to assert there are no gods...and the evidence is too ambiguous to suggest it points in either direction...which is validated by the fact that the two groups are using the same “evidence” to come to polar and irreconcilable conclusions.

Honestly, Ashers, I fail to see how you consider the agnostic position to give credence to either position...and as I see it, it strongly reinforces the notion that neither of these sides can produce persuasive arguments.

Your final comment of coming down on the side of atheism leaves me stumped...as a means of achieving that.

Now I expect we will get into this strong and weak atheism stuff at some point...but as far as I am concerned, that is little more than justification for people who want to be called atheists rather than agnostics...to keep the atheistic designation.

I really would appreciate any further comments you have on agnosticism.
0 Replies
 
Mr Stillwater
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2009 04:06 am
Awww, ****!

Quote:
Pro-God buses for London streets

The atheist messages came after a £140,000 fundraising drive
Three separate pro-God advert campaigns on the sides of London buses are set to hit city streets.

Buses adorned with the slogan "There definitely is a God" are from the Christian Party, while the Trinitarian Bible Society chose a Biblical verse.

The Russian Orthodox Church is also preparing bus adverts.

The adverts, which are unrelated, come a month after the British Humanist Association placed "no God" slogans on buses across England.

Those adverts, which read: "There's probably no God: now stop worrying and enjoy your life" prompted complaints from the group Christian Voice and from individuals.

'Spurred on'

The Advertising Standards Authority ruled that they did not breach acceptable standards.

The Christian Party, led by George Hargreaves, raised enough money for their adverts to appear on 50 London bendy buses.

Their full advert reads: "There definitely is a God; so join the Christian Party and enjoy your life."

Mr Hargreaves said the ad campaign is being funded by donations to his party. He is planning to contest June's European Parliamentary elections.

The Trinitarian Bible Society's advert is not a direct response to the atheist campaign, said the group's assistant general secretary, David Larlham.

"While there is an element of being spurred on, this is not to be seen only as a response to the atheists," Mr Larlham said.

He added that the society has regular poster campaigns in train stations promoting Christianity and offering free Bibles.

The group, with a mandate to distribute the Bible internationally, has chosen the message from Psalm 53.1, which reads: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."

The cost for their two-week campaign on 100 buses is £35,000.

The Russian Orthodox Church plans ads on 25 buses that read: "There IS a God, BELIEVE. Don't worry and enjoy your life."



Chapter 11 verse 5
"and Christ came amongst them, and they spoke to him'How will the faithful know of your words in the time to come?'

6. And THE LORD spoke unto them, 'Upon the red wagons of London Transit Authority in Ultima Thule shall the word of GOD be proclaimed. And many who would ride on these vehicles shall be gladdened by my Father's words as they pass from their homes in Notting Hill to the business districts.

'And they shall also enjoy the conversation of he that sittith upon the public wagons and loudly inform all upon his telephonic angelic long-speaking device of his heavy imbiding on the former night and the slag he hooked up with and his artfullness in moving the DAY OF THE SABBATH to Friday as he would be too ill to take up his tasks at that dead-end merchant bank that employeth him'".
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2009 07:35 am
@Mr Stillwater,
Maybe the atheistic plan is to get the Christians to spend themselves into irrelevancy.
0 Replies
 
Ashers
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2009 07:38 am
Frank, no apology necessary and ehbeth, thanks.

It’s not that I think agnosticism gives credence to either position but to the argument as a whole. That’s very different. I don’t have a problem merely of degree, it’s not that they haven’t offered up enough evidence yet. The nature of the debate, for me at least, indicates no one ever will. If the debate is about the existence of something, that’s a crippling problem. As such, it’d be like if two people were in front of me arguing for polar opposites and I don’t just think that based on what they’ve said that it’s still inconclusive, I think the nature of the problem right to it’s core is inconclusive. I have a problem with the argument as a whole, on principle.

This principle I think is best highlighted by the question I asked previously, what would it mean to find god? Again if the debate is about the existence of god and there’s no agreeable conclusion to this question then when the theist says YES to god or when the stalwart atheist says NO, they’re aren’t saying anything at all. But even if some immensely powerful being came to us with the claim of godhood, what would it prove? Absolutely nothing. How would we test for say, omnipotence? How would we verify it’s being beyond time/space? The point is, the core of the debate, what theists are claiming for and what a lot of atheists are quick to deny is usually thought in terms of that which transcends us. God collapses everything, the only place you ever find it is in the heart/mind of a person, if you really think about it. Really theists identifying with their belief who say god exists are merely expressing their individuality, likewise atheists at the other end.

Hence why I disagree in principle with arguing for the existence of this objective, external being. Hence also why, seeing as theism originally made the motion about god, I call myself an atheist. Not an atheist who goes around denying nothing, I think they miss a trick, but one who denies the argument as a whole. If I merely said there wasn’t enough evidence to decide either way, I’d be ignoring the problem the debate rests on.
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2009 08:16 am
@Ashers,
Interesting. I agree with virtually everything you've said, Ashers, and still come to a different conclusion, i.e. I am unable to call myself an atheist on that basis. And that is precisely because, in my mind, whatever god there is (or is not) is not knowable in the ordinary sense of the word. Rene Dubos, in his A God Within argues that God is not an external force but something within us operating in unknowable ways. Again, it seems to be largely a matter of semantics.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2009 08:26 am
@Ashers,
Thanks, Ashers.



I'd like to comment on just a few items.

Quote:
But even if some immensely powerful being came to us with the claim of godhood, what would it prove? Absolutely nothing. How would we test for say, omnipotence? How would we verify it’s being beyond time/space? The point is, the core of the debate...


First of all...if there is a GOD...I have absolutely no doubt the GOD could reveal its existence in an unambiguous way. The very notion of making a supposition of a GOD that can do ANYTHING, but that it cannot reveal its existence in an unambiguous way...is absurd. If the GOD can do anything...it can think of a way to reveal its existence in an unabiguous way.

I certainly agree with your subtext that since the theists have asserted the existence of a GOD...the burden of proof for that existence falls on them...and simply hiding behind this “you need faith” is disingenuous"albeit, understandable, because that is all they have available.

You still, in my opinion, have not offered a decent explanation for why you see the designation “atheist” as preferable to “agnostic” on the issue...when “atheist” has from classical times (and through its etymology) carried the flavor of “there are no gods”...which, if honestly made, is a counter assertion.

Agnosticism, in my opinion, simply expresses the thought “I do not know the true nature of the Reality of existence...and there is not enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base meaningful guesses on questions such as “are there gods involved or not.”

I think a better case can be made that atheism give succor to the notion that the question CAN properly and logically be addressed...than atheism.




Quote:
If I merely said there wasn’t enough evidence to decide either way, I’d be ignoring the problem the debate rests on.


No you wouldn't. You would simply be telling the truth.

There ISN'T enough evidence “to decide” one way or the other.

And you would be reinforcing the argument that the question cannot logically be addressed.

Taking the position “atheist” really comes up short in that department.
0 Replies
 
Ashers
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2009 08:32 pm
MA, does it not follow that if god is not knowable in the ordinary sense of the word, "it" does not exist in the ordinary sense of the word either? That's basically my position and as such I do indeed deny the existence of god/s (in the ordinary sense of the word), at least within the context of discussion and argument. Do you call yourself an agnostic?

Frank, the very idea of a god that can do anything is ridiculous, never mind demonstrating this to us. This is right at the heart of the problem though. Unless a theist can explain how this stuff comes about and how we would verify it, then it's just more word salad that has no basis in reality. It's a cop out (as far as I'm concerned) to merely say well I don't know but that's god's job. Imagine if real answers worked like that?

My position with regards to this:

Quote:
“I do not know the true nature of the Reality of existence...and there is not enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base meaningful guesses on questions such as “are there gods involved or not.”


would be that we cannot know the true nature of existence. If this true nature is that which transcends our fragmentary perspectives then evidence is also meaningless since that merely provides us with relationships and links between things stuck at our level. If evidence could be attached to god then god would not be god surely? "god" would be finite. Saying well god can do anything is not saying anything at all and just further highlights the fallacy that arguing for god's existence in a verifiable, agreeable manner rests upon.

If I see the issue as being that there cannot ever be enough evidence, that the very idea of evidence for god is ludicrous, simply stating that there isn't enough to decide either way WOULD be ignoring my first statement. It'd be like if two people were having an argument about something and they asked me who was right but I knew/believed something that contradicted them both but I satisfied myself with merely saying I don't know who's right. The first point about evidence for god being mad in itself SUPERCEDES any points about there not CURRENTLY being enough evidence to make a decision. If evidence for god is meaningless then it doesn't matter how much of it you've got. There can be no evidence for god. That's my position anyway, if you disagree that's fair enough but from my perspective it absolutely would be ignoring the central issue.

I have to say though that I honestly couldn't care less what label I am attached with really, think of me however you want. I think fleshing out an actual position gives an infinite amount more understanding than "agnostic" or "atheist" etc.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 07:23 am
@Ashers,

Quote:
Frank, the very idea of a god that can do anything is ridiculous...


Just because you say so???

Why is it ridiculous? Why is anything ridiculous, as a matter of fact?

Quote:
.. Unless a theist can explain how this stuff comes about and how we would verify it, then it's just more word salad that has no basis in reality. It's a cop out (as far as I'm concerned) to merely say well I don't know but that's god's job. Imagine if real answers worked like that?


What are you talking about???

And what do theistic guesses about what a GOD would be like...have to do with whether or not there are gods?

EVERY SINGLE GUESS ANY HUMAN HAS EVER MADE ABOUT THE NATURE OF GODS COULD BE WRONG...and gods could still exist.

Quote:
“I do not know the true nature of the Reality of existence...and there is not enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base meaningful guesses on questions such as “are there gods involved or not.”


would be that we cannot know the true nature of existence.


If you say so.

I really do not know for sure what we can or cannot know about the true nature of the Reality of existence. What we see...what we sometimes deem to be an illusion...may be THE REALITY.

Quote:
If this true nature is that which transcends our fragmentary perspectives then evidence is also meaningless since that merely provides us with relationships and links between things stuck at our level. If evidence could be attached to god then god would not be god surely? "god" would be finite. Saying well god can do anything is not saying anything at all and just further highlights the fallacy that arguing for god's existence in a verifiable, agreeable manner rests upon.


This statement is a logician's nightmare. I am not sure what you were trying to say here. You seem to be fond of making a statement and simply assuming it must be so...simply because you stated it.

Quote:

If I see the issue as being that there cannot ever be enough evidence, that the very idea of evidence for god is ludicrous, simply stating that there isn't enough to decide either way WOULD be ignoring my first statement. It'd be like if two people were having an argument about something and they asked me who was right but I knew/believed something that contradicted them both but I satisfied myself with merely saying I don't know who's right.


You are doing it again.

Quote:
The first point about evidence for god being mad in itself SUPERCEDES any points about there not CURRENTLY being enough evidence to make a decision.


That simply is not so...just because you say it is.

Quote:
If evidence for god is meaningless then it doesn't matter how much of it you've got.


Who are you to say the evidence is meaningless???

To theists, the evidence is very meaningful and persuasive...just as to atheists, the evidence that there are no gods is very meaningful and persuasive. I think they are all wet...but to suggest that you can use "the evidence is meaningless" as an axiom makes no sense.

Quote:
There can be no evidence for god.


Who are you to say there can be no evidence for (gods)??? Why do you do that so often?

Quote:
That's my position anyway, if you disagree that's fair enough but from my perspective it absolutely would be ignoring the central issue.


Well...apparently “the central issue” in your mind is that if you say something...it has to be accepted as fact. If you say “There can be no evidence for god”...that, in your mind, has to be accepted.

And if that is “the central issue”...anybody not “ignoring” it doesn't understand how debate works.

Quote:
I have to say though that I honestly couldn't care less what label I am attached with really, think of me however you want. I think fleshing out an actual position gives an infinite amount more understanding than "agnostic" or "atheist" etc.


Okay, let's forget about any labelling for now.

But I am interested in the straight answer to a few questions.

Do you know if there are any gods?

Do you know if there are no gods.

Do you have enough evidence to state categorically that a GOD is absolutely necessary to explain existence?

Do you have enough evidence to state categorically that there is no possibility of any gods existing?

I do not care what you call yourself, Ashers. But I would love to hear your answers to those questions.
Ashers
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 12:56 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Frank, the very idea of a god that can do anything is ridiculous...



Just because you say so???

Why is it ridiculous? Why is anything ridiculous, as a matter of fact?


No it's my opinion. Just like everything else I've said here. It's true on a few occasions I've said something without backing it up but that's nearly always when it followed on (in my opinion) from what I'd previously said. Like where you quoted "there can be no evidence for god" out of context. It was a conclusion to my reasoning prior to the statement. Disagree, by all means or if the reasoning is faulty (and it may well be, I've never claimed to be infallible either, quite the opposite I think) say why but PLEASE don't tell me I'm stating everything as if it were fact. Don't act like I'm up on some pedestal shouting down. I have no interest in telling others what to think, I don't expect anyone to agree with me merely because I say so. The idea of converting people to my position repulses me. Every single part of your last post that implied as much was BS and a really low blow as far as I'm concerned. I apologise if I gave an impression that warranted all this stuff in your previous post but I really don't think I did. I ended my original post here by simply saying this is what I and I think a few other atheists are THINKING. Nothing has changed so I'm disappointed to be honest. Kind of soured this now.

For the record, my reasoning for this statement was (I think) the same as yours in saying the idea of a god that could not reveal itself to us is absurd. I assumed you meant this in the sense that god can do anything and as such he could reveal himself to us. Him not being able to reveal himself would be a contradiction in terms. I am saying that the idea a being can do anything is a contradiction in itself, like making a square circle or whatever. That to me is ridiculous.


Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
.. Unless a theist can explain how this stuff comes about and how we would verify it, then it's just more word salad that has no basis in reality. It's a cop out (as far as I'm concerned) to merely say well I don't know but that's god's job. Imagine if real answers worked like that?



What are you talking about???

And what do theistic guesses about what a GOD would be like...have to do with whether or not there are gods?

EVERY SINGLE GUESS ANY HUMAN HAS EVER MADE ABOUT THE NATURE OF GODS COULD BE WRONG...and gods could still exist.


Theist guesses are my only interest. Why? Because it is how beliefs are used for harm that interests me. Maybe this is why we've spoken across each other a bit. I have zero interest in the second question while god remains ambiguous enough to essentially be russell's teapot or the invisible pink unicorn. It is the theist guesses I deny. But this isn't a change of position. Here's what I said originally:

Quote:
When there is no working definition or any description at all of god in terms of experimentally confirming it to actually decide one way or the other, I don’t see the problem with just dismissing the whole thing. It’s not the same as claiming there is no god because you couldn’t do that even if you wanted, there’s no reasonable description to connect the sentiment to. It’s just a dismissal of the whole thing, that’s really more my atheism.


Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
“I do not know the true nature of the Reality of existence...and there is not enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base meaningful guesses on questions such as “are there gods involved or not.”


would be that we cannot know the true nature of existence.



If you say so.

I really do not know for sure what we can or cannot know about the true nature of the Reality of existence. What we see...what we sometimes deem to be an illusion...may be THE REALITY.


Again, it's called an opinion. There's nothing wrong with having one as far as I'm concerned. It's what we do with our opinions and how seriously we take them that matters. I should have stated just what I meant by "true nature of existence" before I responded but in fairness, you haven't defined that either. Anyway, I take it personally to be synonymous with the totality of reality. It seems to me we occupy finite, limited perspectives of the world and a true nature would transcend these limited views. But it also seems to me that our limited views are integral to what we call "knowledge" which is connected with our finite views of the relationships between things. A view which transcends this also transcends knowledge as we know it hence I said the true nature is unknowable. It's just a personal view based on my experiences and thoughts of the world and not particularly necessary to this discussion but I thought I'd throw it out there in response anyway. Just sharing a view but I get back this "if you say so" attitude. Weird.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If this true nature is that which transcends our fragmentary perspectives then evidence is also meaningless since that merely provides us with relationships and links between things stuck at our level. If evidence could be attached to god then god would not be god surely? "god" would be finite. Saying well god can do anything is not saying anything at all and just further highlights the fallacy that arguing for god's existence in a verifiable, agreeable manner rests upon.



This statement is a logician's nightmare. I am not sure what you were trying to say here. You seem to be fond of making a statement and simply assuming it must be so...simply because you stated it.


I honestly couldn't disagree more but unless you can give me something to work with like WHY then how should I respond? All I was getting at was the same point you originally quoted in your last post about the idea of an omnipotent god being absurd. If god is beyond time and space (a typical requirement) then how can we attach evidence to "it". Omnipotence seems to me to be a contradiction. If I'm right about that and all a theist says is well he's god, he's above contradiction then he's actually killing the debate dead with regards to "it's" possible existence. God destroys logic but we're supposed to be able to use logic to find it? This is what I was getting at, hope it's clearer maybe.


Quote:
Quote:
Quote:

If I see the issue as being that there cannot ever be enough evidence, that the very idea of evidence for god is ludicrous, simply stating that there isn't enough to decide either way WOULD be ignoring my first statement. It'd be like if two people were having an argument about something and they asked me who was right but I knew/believed something that contradicted them both but I satisfied myself with merely saying I don't know who's right.



You are doing it again.
Quote:
Quote:
The first point about evidence for god being mad in itself SUPERCEDES any points about there not CURRENTLY being enough evidence to make a decision.



That simply is not so...just because you say it is.


PLEASE, notice the word "IF". I was trying to explain my position to you, I was not and am not telling you how it is. I said if because I was trying to show you why, if I took position A, that position B followed. As for disagreeing with the reasoning, I think we may have to agree to disagree on this point. All I'd be doing is re-iterating, I honestly think it follows but you obviously disagree. If my thinking is wrong I'd like to know so it'd be interesting to hear what others have to say about this and whether what I've said here makes sense to anyone else. It wouldn't win any argument of course, but I have no interest in that anyway.


Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If evidence for god is meaningless then it doesn't matter how much of it you've got.



Who are you to say the evidence is meaningless???

To theists, the evidence is very meaningful and persuasive...just as to atheists, the evidence that there are no gods is very meaningful and persuasive. I think they are all wet...but to suggest that you can use "the evidence is meaningless" as an axiom makes no sense.


Again, I said IF and that point followed on from what I'd previously said, namely that if you cannot agree on something being evidence then what kind of evidence is it? If the test results to prove someone was a father could not be agreed upon to point in one direction or the other, the test would not be evidence for anything.


Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
There can be no evidence for god.



Who are you to say there can be no evidence for (gods)??? Why do you do that so often?


Now HERE I agree that this sentence wasn't fleshed out much but I still say that everything I'd said prior to this gives a logical basis for the statement. See what I said previously about the notion of there being evidence for god or about god being omnipotent. It wasn't pulled straight out of my arse.



Quote:
Quote:
That's my position anyway, if you disagree that's fair enough but from my perspective it absolutely would be ignoring the central issue.



Well...apparently “the central issue” in your mind is that if you say something...it has to be accepted as fact. If you say “There can be no evidence for god”...that, in your mind, has to be accepted.

And if that is “the central issue”...anybody not “ignoring” it doesn't understand how debate works.


Just really, really poor this as far as I'm concerned and again you've soured my enjoyment of what had been an interesting and friendly conversation. I could be wrong, but I honestly don't think what I posted in this thread deserved this, "sez you" response. You just make it sound like I'm up on some podium shouting down at all the idiots. What a horrible implication and totally uncalled for. If you can honestly read back and still maintain this attitude then I might just call it quits here because what's the point??

As for your questions, NO to all of them. I hope you're not surprised. See what I said about what I'm arguing against and where my interests lie to see why this doesn't change my position. I'm sorry if I've sounded like a sour puss in this whole response but I really think the attitude in your last post was out of line and I'm not going to ignore it as if it was justified. Also, I don't have much time at the moment for big posts like this but I wanted to respond properly because I'd enjoyed the discussion.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 01:46 pm
@Ashers,
Thanks for the response, Ashers.

The only way we can have any kind of reasonable discussion on these issues is if we take the matters in smaller increments. Otherwise we will get bogged down in talking past each other. And it can easily appear that one person is trying to put the other down in some way. That is not what I am coming from...and I am going to assume you are not either. If I suggest something sounds like pontification...it is because it sounds like pontification to me. I am not trying to insult you...I am trying to be sure we both agree about when we are talking opinion...and when we are talking fact...or something logically deduced.

It may be, by the way, that you have no interest in pursuing this area of discussion. Your comments about being mainly interested in how religion impacts on us now...indicates you may not. My response to that would be: I am interested in impacting on religion because I see religion as a massive net negative for humanity. It should come as no surprise that I think the best way to impact significantly and remedially on religion is via an agnostic, rather than an atheistic approach; so much so that I think attempting it via an atheistic route is a recipe for reinforcing the essentials of religion rather than dealing with it.

Let me re-cap what we have so far:


I asked: Do you know if there are any gods? Your answer: NO

I asked: Do you know if there are no gods? Your answer: NO

I asked: Do you have enough evidence to state categorically that a GOD is absolutely necessary to explain existence? Your answer: NO

I asked: Do you have enough evidence to state categorically that there is no possibility of any gods existing? Your answer: NO


My answers to those four questions would all be NO, also. We are identical up to this point.

Now I'd like to ask two questions of a slightly different nature:

Do you see any evidence that there is a GOD or are gods?

Do you see evidence that there are no gods?

A COUPLE OF NOTES, if I may:

As to the first question: I am expecting your answer to be NO. Nothing that I see requires the existence of a GOD or gods in order to be...and I suspect you are in that same position. I'll be surprised if you came up with some things that indicate the existence of a GOD or gods...but if you do, we can discuss them.

As to the second question: I really hope you do not offer variations on “I see (sense) no gods” “There is no need for a GOD” or “Theists cannot produce evidence of any gods.”

None of those are truly evidence that there are no gods--and what I am truly interested in is any evidence you see that there are no gods.


If you want to offer any of the arguments you made in your last post...just cut and paste them. I have lots of disagreements with some of those arguments, but I really would prefer to be sure you stick with them.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 01:56 pm
@Ashers,
Ashers,
Quote:
I call myself an atheist. Not an atheist who goes around denying nothing, I think they miss a trick, but one who denies the argument as a whole.


Excellent point !

The "missing of the trick" involves lack of understanding that "existence" is never independent. It always involves relationship.

Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 02:00 pm
@fresco,
Awww, ****!

This horseshit has to raise its ******* ugly head right here!
0 Replies
 
Ashers
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 02:19 pm
@Frank Apisa,
No to both questions of course. How do you prove a negative? But you're really not understanding where I'm coming from, you're speaking to me as if I'm the archetypical atheist. I am not and I've already noted as much. I've also already repeatedly mentioned the problem of evidence and hence my problem with the debate and I've also noted my problem with the typical atheists that is presumbly the same problem you have. You've barely responded to much of what I've said though. Given what I've said in all my posts here, I just don't understand how this:

Quote:
None of those are truly evidence that there are no gods--and what I am truly interested in is any evidence you see that there are no gods.


...applies to me.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/25/2022 at 02:10:59