Calling all atheists

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Stop and look at yourself.

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.

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.

My blood pressure is fine--there's another idiotic child's game you play.

You lose.

Fine, thank you.

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?

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.

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5207813)
Yes. I am 100% wrong trying to explain anything to a simpleton !