Calling all atheists

And you are an intellectual coward with no class, who has nothing to offer but sneers because you cannot defend that bullshit you peddle. Step up Frank, show us alleged strength of your point of view.

I am willing to discuss anything with you or Fresco, Setanta. Man up and start discussing...rather than spewing the insults.

What would you like to discuss?

And thanks again for the "sneers" comment in a post filled with sneers. Do you honestly not see how silly you look with those kinds of remarks?

Okay…since I have been accused of refusing to discuss this issue, let me start the discussion…and see if Setanta and Fresco are willing to engage.

We have people in A2K who assert a GOD definitely exists…and we have people in A2K who assert there are no gods. These people claim to KNOW either that a GOD exists…or that gods do not exist. There is no ambiguity on the issue according to these folk.

I, on the other hand, do not know if a GOD exists…and I do not know if gods do not exist. I see no reason to suppose a GOD is needed to explain existence…at the same time, I see no reason to suppose that a GOD or gods cannot possibly exist. And I acknowledge all that.

I see no convincing arguments that I should guess one way or the other—and I am not disposed to do so. Frankly, theistic arguments that a GOD exists leave me wondering how anyone could be convinced by the arguments I’ve heads offered…and atheistic arguments that there are no gods are never more than variations on “there is no need for a GOD” or “the theists cannot produce a GOD”…neither of which is an argument that there are no gods.

Some theists acknowledge that they actually have an agnostic perspective on the issue, but that they choose to guess there is a GOD for a variety of reasons…and they want to be known as theists or “believers.” They conceive of their choice as the best available to them…superior to any others they have considered.

Fine!

Some atheists acknowledge that they actually have an agnostic perspective on the issue, but that they simply are not willing to guess there are gods…and they claim they are by dint of that decision they must call themselves atheists. They conceive of their choice as the best available to them…superior to any others they have considered.

That also is fine.

In the past I have preferred the term “agnostic” to denote my position. I conceive of that as the best available to me; superior to any others I have considered; and I think highlighting the fact that I do not know is a sign of strength.

The people who claim they know a GOD exists may actually have an inside track to the GOD. No way I can KNOW for sure that they don’t…so I studiously avoid discussions about religion or REALITY with them.

I cannot conceive of how any intelligent individual can claim to KNOW gods do not exist. The only way they could KNOW that for sure is if they were a god…and you can see the problem that would present for their assertion. And quite honestly, I see the pretence of knowing there are no gods to be a sign of weakness.

In my signature line, I cover my feelings about that: To acknowledge what you do not know is a display of strength. To pretend you know what you truly don’'t – is a display of weakness.

What do you see as the major problem with my position?

Name any other "thing" whose postulated "existence" has no agreed observable consequences for what we call the world. You cannot, and that is why postulating such "existence" is as arbitrary as postulating that of "fairies". The only difference between "God" and "fairies", is the historical social conditioning which makes "existence of God" part of an acceptable view of "reality". Our language, culture, buildings and calendar are so steeped in theism that the average individual finds himself in the invidious position of being a spectator of "the emperor's new clothes" only in this case the clothes are real, but the emperor is absent ! The cynic would say "belief in God" is a socially acquired insurance policy (compulsory in some societies) on which we never collect.

Now there are those who do see what they consider to be observable evidence of "God" but the major epistemological point which removes this from the usual category we call "knowledge" is the lack of general agreement among such believers. So the weakness of your position boils down to the simple issue of what you accept as "knowledge", since theists clearly do not adhere to the norm. That is why the Stanford article above is significant because it exposes your lack of awareness of that point. i.e. contrary to your assertion ,you do NOT know what "know" means in the sense of its multifaceted usages.

And all this could be covered in week 1, epistemology 101, by those open minded enough to do the required reading.

Oh, christ already.

Let us suppose everything you said is correct (even though I think there is much with which we can argue)...how would it impact on what I just wrote?

The people who claim they KNOW there is a GOD...and the people who claim they KNOW there are no gods...are still in the same position which I outlined for them. The people who realize and acknowledge they do not KNOW...even though they choose a side...are still in the same position. And I, Fresco, am still where I am.

Are you telling me there is no possibility of gods...and that you can establish that beyond reasonable doubt?

Each of us still sees our choice as the superior choice...from among the choices available to us.

I still see the pretense as a sign of weakness...and I see the acknowledgement of doubt on the issue as a sign of strength.

So what is your point?

Sorry you apparently feel you are being forced to read this, Ossobuco. But since you are, why don't you tell me what you see as the major problem with the position I laid out.

Ten years of your never listening.

However, your quibbling with various atheists is irrelevant to this particular thread. I think of you as noise.

I "listen" to everything that is said. Perhaps I am not persuaded that I am wrong because I am not, rather than (as you think) because I never listen.




That is your right...just as not answering the question is your right. Once again...sorry you are being forced to read what I write.

Yawn.

My thought exactly.

Finally we agree.

I have answered you in the past. In contrast to you, mr. jack in the box, I try not to be repetitive.
Your question to me has nada to do with this thread, you are just trying yet again to be right right right.
It is quite annoying.

Please put your arguments of this sort on appropriate threads and in the mean time, shut up.

You have not answered the question put here...and you would not be repetitive. But I suspect your not responding has less to do with being repetitive than other things.



The question is the result of a conversation taking place in this thread...and has a place. It was not directed to you, but you still are free to respond to it or ignore it. You seem to be doing neither.



Just as your sniping is annoying to me. But it is your right to do so.



I don't think so. And you sure went from a yawn to a furor in very short order.

Whatever, you are a pest.
I have thought so for years, and you keep doing it inappropriately, for years and years and years and years.
It isn't cute.

oops, wrong thread

Yeah, well you are nasty. I have NOT thought so for years and years...I think you have just grown into it. It doesn't look good on you.

I am having my say...and you seem to be bothered by that.

Stop and look at yourself.

Frank. If a "crazy" persists in sitting next to you on the bus and attempts to engage you in conversation in order to exercise his favorite phrase "how do you know that ?" (like the child who revels in the infinite regress of "why") you have a good picture of how you arouse animosity. You have admitted to enjoying trying to make people "squirm", but you are mistaking intellectual exasperation with a boring and poorly informed simpleton, with silence resulting from the wisdom of a sage. You are on the wrong bus. The one you need runs only between the barber's shop and the club bar.

This is not a response to the criticisms made, and it's disingenuous crap as a response, because we've heard all of this before. One of the criticisms is that you don't apply your agnosticism globally--i.e., you sneer at the question of whether or not there are other supernatural beings, such as fairies, pixies and elves, but treat the question of whether or not there are any gods seriously. That is an inconsistency which makes your claim to holding a logical position nonsense. I once asked you, years and years ago, why you treat that question with more seriousness than any other question regarding the putative existence of supernatural creatures, and you honestly answered that you couldn't say. You've grown hidebound since then, though, and now simply scoff at the question, rather than answering this logical inconsistency.

You signature line, which you still seem to prize so highly, is farcical. If you truly inhabit such a dark and unknown epistomological landscape, than your signature line is meaningless. You cannot know, by your own criterion, who is weak and who is strong in that regard, because you cannot know who knows and who does not know. With all you silliness about insisting on the word "guess," it's fair to point out that you would just be guessing about who does or does not know a thing, unless you assert yourself to knowing. Then all of your epistomological hostility rebounds on you.

This post that i'm replying to is not an answer to crticisms. It's just a rehash of what we've heard from you for years and years, and it's gotten boring. You don't answer criticism, you just repeat your dogmatic creed.

I like what I see. How about you?