8
   

Calling all atheists

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2012 04:55 am
@fresco,
Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5207244)
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.


Apparently I am on the right bus, Fresco. You are still here talking with me.

I notice you are talking about me...rather than the discussion I started.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2012 05:01 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5206806)
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.


Well, apparently it hasn't gotten boring enough for you to abandon me, Set...and for that, I thank you.

Quote:
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.


I am going to make a wild guess here that you are not going to back that up with any citations. We are just going to have to take your word for that, right?

If you want to talk about fairies and pixies...talk to one of your fellow atheists. They seem as obsessed as two year olders about them. As for me...since they do not fit into my interest about possibilities of the REALITY...I am not interested in discussing them. If you see that as an inconsistency...see it that way. What can I tell ya?

In the meantime, I've started a discussion that ended with a question. Any chance you want to tackle that?


Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2012 05:06 am
@Setanta,
By the way, Set, this is the opening line of your last post:


Quote:
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.


Think about what you said there! Probably Freudian! Wink

0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2012 05:26 am
@Frank Apisa,
Earlier this year, i did back up those assertions with citations of your previous posts, most notably in the thread which Portal Star started in 2004. I'm not going to play some stupid game in which you deny having said what i've already proven you've said just because you want me to run off and do the research every time.

I know that you aren't interested in discussing any other supernatural beings than a possible deity, precisely because your alleged agnosticism is inconsistent, and only applies the religious vestiges of your enculturation. In short, as an agnostic, you're a fraud. The fairy stories about gods are no less a product of credulous minds than are stories about fairies, pixies and elves.

I've presented criticisms of your eternally boring dogmatic creed. You have not answered those criticisms. Don't expect me answer any questions of yours while you ignore legitimate questions posed to you. Don't expect anyone to be suckered into playing some stupid game in which you attempt, yet again, to demonstrate the excellence of your understanding and of the logic of your position. Quite apart from that being delusion on your part, we've all been down this road too many times in the past to fall for it again.

You prate about Freudian? You must claim to know psychology--i'm calling bullshit. By your stated criterion, that's a sign of weakness on your part.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2012 05:43 am
@Setanta,

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5207441)
Earlier this year, i did back up those assertions with citations of your previous posts, most notably in the thread which Portal Star started in 2004. I'm not going to play some stupid game in which you deny having said what i've already proven you've said just because you want me to run off and do the research every time.


Once again I am going to suppose you will not back this up with a citation...and we will have to take your word for it. Excuse me if I prefer not to take your word on anything, Set.

Quote:
I know that you aren't interested in discussing any other supernatural beings than a possible deity, precisely because your alleged agnosticism is inconsistent, and only applies the religious vestiges of your enculturation. In short, as an agnostic, you're a fraud. The fairy stories about gods are no less a product of credulous minds than are stories about fairies, pixies and elves.



My agnosticism is VERY consistent.

Definitions: Fairy: A tiny imaginary being in human form, depicted as clever, mischievous, and possessing magical powers.
Pixie: A fairylike (tiny imaginary being) or elfin creature, especially one that is mischievous; a playful sprite.
Elf:: A supernatural creature of folk tales,

They are defined as being imaginary…and they have absolutely nothing to do with examining the possibilities of the true nature of REALITY. No reason to deal with them any further. If you really want to discuss them...and obviously you do...discuss them with one of your fellow atheists. You guys are nuts about them and they will go on and on with you on the subject.

But I love that this diversion gives you an opportunity to do what you seem to love best, Set…calling people names. You are so entertaining.



Quote:
I've presented criticisms of your eternally boring dogmatic creed. You have not answered those criticisms. Don't expect me answer any questions of yours while you ignore legitimate questions posed to you. Don't expect anyone to be suckered into playing some stupid game in which you attempt, yet again, to demonstrate the excellence of your understanding and of the logic of your position. Quite apart from that being delusion on your part, we've all been down this road too many times in the past to fall for it again.

You prate about Freudian? You must claim to know psychology--i'm calling bullshit. By your stated criterion, that's a sign of weakness on your part.


Another of those long, interesting "I ain't gonna fall for it again" comments, Set!!! C'mon. You are better than this. Wink
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2012 05:47 am
@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:
Stop and look at yourself.


when i stop to look at myself, i like to arch one eyebrow slightly, and then say, "the name's bond, james bond"
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2012 05:52 am
@djjd62,
I like to arch one eyebrow also, d. Unfortunately, at my age, I cannot do the "Bond, James Bond" thingy. "Woolley," perhaps, "Monty Woolley" is what I use!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2012 06:13 am
@Frank Apisa,
I don't give a rat's ass whose word you take for what. You're a bullshit artist, playing a bullshit game, and i'm not going to play it.

I've called bullshit, and you haven't backed up your bullshit. So as far as i can see, that means you can't back it up. You lose.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2012 06:34 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5207469)
I don't give a rat's ass whose word you take for what. You're a bullshit artist, playing a bullshit game, and i'm not going to play it.


Gosh, Set...you really have got to learn to lighten up. Your blood pressure is gonna take a serious hit if you keep this uncontrolled anger up.

Anyway...no, I am not a bullshit artist...and I am not playing a bullshit game. I am having a bit of fun with you (and I appreciate that you are playing along)...but that's about it.


Quote:
I've called bullshit, and you haven't backed up your bullshit. So as far as i can see, that means you can't back it up. You lose.


I see. So you think you can call me a bullshitter...and if I do not "back up" my bullshit (something about that doesn't quite compute)...then I "lose."

Jesus H. Christ, Setanta...is there no limit to how far you will go to make my day brighter. That was so damn funny I spit some orange juice on my keyboard. Oh boy...the job of A2K!

So...what else do you want to talk about?

0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2012 07:47 am
My blood pressure is fine--there's another idiotic child's game you play.

You lose.
fresco
 
  3  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2012 08:16 am
@Frank Apisa,
I was giving you the courtesy of a reply to your question about the weakness of your position. That reply, rephrased, was that you have no understanding of how the word "know" can be context sensitive and that context is negotiable. That is why discussion with you is a waste of time.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2012 09:48 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
My blood pressure is fine--there's another idiotic child's game you play.

You lose.


Holy moley...I "lose" if your blood pressure is fine.

Seems like you are designing the rules in a way that you "win" no matter what.

Hilarious!
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2012 09:59 am
@fresco,


Well, thank you, Fresco.

But I outlined a series of statements...and I am still waiting for you to comment on that.

And you are setting things up so that no matter what I say about "know" (so that we can have a discussion) you will claim it indicates a lack of understanding, so that pursuing the discussion is a waste of time.

You are not related to Setanta, are you?

In any case, it sounds to me as though you have no real argument against my position (apparently those guys you quote cannot come up with something for you to use) so you are simply dismissing everything I write as being outside an understanding that human communication often has to be "context sensitive" and that the context can be "negotiable."

Tell me this: If a person says "I KNOW there are NO gods"...and it happens that there ARE gods...how would we negotiate the area between what actually is...and what that individual says he knows so that any kind of reasonable discussion can occur?

ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2012 10:02 am
@Frank Apisa,
Fine, thank you.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2012 10:08 am
@ossobuco,
Quote:
Fine, thank you.


Great. I am genuinely happy for you about that.

I hope everyone in A2K can take a good look at him/herself...and come away feeling "fine"...being satisfied with what they see.

In fact, I wish everyone in the world could do so, although realistically speaking, that probably is not the case.

0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  3  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2012 12:24 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Tell me this: If a person says "I KNOW there are NO gods"...and it happens that there ARE gods...how would we negotiate the area between what actually is...and what that individual says he knows so that any kind of reasonable discussion can occur?


You don't get it because you are a naive realist. The highlighted phrase above is meaningless.

There can be no "is-ness" without agreement as to expected observation. In the absence of agreed definitions of how "gods" might manifest, the only hypothetical discussion possible would be along the lines that the atheist knows that there are no gods for him, even if the theist says he knows there are for himself. Insofar that neither position impinges negatively on the relationship between them, both the ontological and epistemological issues are irrelevant, but if (as is sometimes the case), the theist seeks to impose the consequences of his "knowledge" on the other, then the atheist is entitled to point out what he considers to be the arbitrary nature of the theistic "evidence", its departure from normal rationality, and its potential pernicious social consequences.

As an atheist I know that many theists know "God exists". Their god concept is co-existent and co-relational with their self concept. My self concept does not require the postulation of "the existence of a god". I know from science, that postulation of invisible entities is only meaningful with respect to the postulation of co-related entities which ultimately give rise to agreed observation. Those entities which fail that "meaning test" are discarded in the manner of Occam's Razor.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2012 12:29 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5207676)
Quote:
Tell me this: If a person says "I KNOW there are NO gods"...and it happens that there ARE gods...how would we negotiate the area between what actually is...and what that individual says he knows so that any kind of reasonable discussion can occur?



You don't get it because you are a naive realist. The highlighted phrase above is meaningless.

There can be no "is-ness" without agreement as to expected observation.


Ummm...what if you are wrong about this???

Have you ever been wrong about anything?

fresco
 
  2  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2012 01:04 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Yes. I am 100% wrong trying to explain anything to a simpleton ! Smile
Frank Apisa
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2012 02:07 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5207813)
Yes. I am 100% wrong trying to explain anything to a simpleton !


Actually, that was not bad, Fresco. Maybe there is hope for you. We'll see.

In the meantime, I guess you expect we should all accept your guesses about the REALITY in order to meet your expectations of what constitutes a non-simpleton.

That's not going to happen. You wanna build a church and set up the dogma...you are going to have to do it somewhere else.


fresco
 
  2  
Reply Thu 27 Dec, 2012 02:55 am
@Frank Apisa,
Honk ! Honk !
(actually your photo does bear some resemblance to Harpo Marx !)
http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/7531/harpo.jpg

 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/29/2024 at 02:58:24