Okay...let's see...where was I...

Lola, you misunderstand me. I don't believe god doesn't exist, or that there are no gods. That would be an active belief. I am not even interested. I am sans theism, void of it.

0 Replies

well, I believe he doesn't exist, I'm not sure I know how to avoid having an opinion........if I thought he did exist, I might be more concerned about my attitude.......but since I'm not, I think that indicates the veracity of my statement that I believe God does not exist.

I agree with whoever said, (Thomas or Setanta, or someone) that it's like making up a story or fairy tale and then insisting that someone prove it's not true. It's a perfectly ridiculous and unnecessary story........I would believe in Santa Claus before I'd believe in God.....but only if I didn't have to believe the part about making it personally, himself (not delegating the responsibility not to mention the work to several little elves who could fit down a chimney) to every single home in the world all on one night, with Reindeer no less and one with a red nose......And that fat belly that jiggles when he laughs like a bowl full of jelly, it seems unlikely to me that he'd ever make it down most chimneys......as a matter of fact, I don't believe I've ever seen a chimney a fat man could make it down, especially with a bowl full of jelly and just think of the soot......that's a really big problem right there too. He'd be a mess, the carpet in the living room would be a mess, and how would that be for Christmas morning?.........Mom gets to clean up Santa's mess before the kids get up.....and the roof, can you imagine the ruination of the shingles? The insurance companies would get sh!t kickin mad and raise insurance premiums and we'd all go broke, social security or not.........then where would we be, in Water World?.....oh God, I hope not. I can't stand Kevin Costner, except I did like him once when he was new and young and fresh........but now, he makes me want to do as Roseanne Rosanna Danna said, he makes me want to just throw up! Ahhgh.

Anyway, except for all that, I'd sooner believe in Santa than some male type humanoid, in whose image we were created........now how god like does that sound? And that he gave his only begotten son and for what purpose? Because I'm such a big sinner?........ It just sounds like something my mother made up to make me behave. And anyway, how Christian is that to sacrifice your own son?.........oh, never mind, I see how that might work.

I do believe in science and evolution though. A thing has to sound believable before one goes about the hard work involved to try to scientifically disprove or prove the thing's existence. And the God creating the universe story just doesn't hold up for me. So that's what I think.

And that big bag full of toys for all the girls and boys, surely he would have to throw it down onto the front lawn making such a clatter that it would make all of us spring from our beds to see what was the matter and then he'd have to open the front door........who is going to believe that big bag, with all those wonderful toys that make Christmas so much fun, could possibly make it on a flying sleigh, much less clunking down a chimney?......and what about those of us without a chimney?........ and how did he get past me year after year as I waited patiently with my brother and sisters at the top of the stairs with our trusty flashlights.....I never saw him......

0 Replies

I understand your point of view, Lola. I even understand Frank's. I need to speak up for my own and a few others every few months or so.

Lessee, perhaps I'll pipe up again in September or October.

0 Replies

I liked your contribution. Please say it more often.

0 Replies

Taliesin181 wrote:

Thomas: I don't really care if I agree with your defintion; my main purpose is to understand your argument, which you've never really described. If you still do not wish to explain your defintion, then at least elaborate on your evidence. Thank you.

My argument #1 is that there is no definition. That means I have no definition to explain to you or to show you evidence for -- and I don't think anybody else does. I think Setanta made my argument #2 better than I did: Like him and Lola, I reject that the burden of proof is on me here. When someone makes up a story, I feel it is his responsibility to show supporting evidence if he wants me to believe it. It isn't my responsibility to show contradicting evidence if I choose to believe it is false, given that the story was made up. Or in other words, I don't believe god exists for the same reason you don't believe Mickey Mouse exists.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Now there are two people asking Lola and Thomas for all the great mass of evidence they have that there are no gods involved in REALITY.

Where's the meat?

We have no mass of evidence that there are no gods involved in reality. Indeed, if we are right, there are no gods to have evidence for or against. What we do have, however, is evidence about stories, about how they are involved in reality and our perception of it. We can observe people's willingness to tell and re-tell them, and how they evolve and propagate through society as they are told and re-told millions of times. The evidence from such observations has taught me that when I hear a story without supporting evidence, and it's worth hearing and telling just because it's a good story, true or false -- then it is almost certainly false. But that doesn't keep a lot of people from believing them anyway. All stories I have heard about gods so far meet both conditions, so that is an adequate reason for considering the existence of god "almost certainly false, but many will buy it anyway".

(As an aside, note that you couldn't make the same case against the atheist side. We don't tell stories about blind people who saw again because a selfless atheist touched them with Russel's "Why I am not a Christian". We don't tell stories about hardened, lifetime deists who repented on their deathbeds when they finally found atheism. We don't lobby Congress to change the pledge of allegiance into "One nation without gods, indivisible ..." Even atheist religions such as Buddhism never make it a point that they are atheist. They just ignore all those urban legends asserting god's existence.)

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

You are right, ossobuco. I have stated my version on a number of threads and don't see the need of rehashing, since the people of faith, the deists and agnostics, will never concede anything. What's the point regurgitating arguments infinitum and getting nowhere?

Yeah, right, Edgar.

You are exactly the kind of atheist that I use in my description.

You assert there are no gods.

Your atheism has nothing to do with what Osso was talking about.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

ossobuco wrote:
What a sight of baloney...

I think people have been pretty friendly in this discussion, I say as a fellow traveler.

People seem to go with Frank's idea of what an atheist is, although several a2k atheists don't.

I do so hate to put up my definition yet again, but since it seems to get only nods from other atheists and then is quickly forgotten, I'll type it once more. An atheist is one who is void of theistic belief.

That does not mean the atheist believes any other construct the arguers devise.

An atheist has no necessity to prove anything at all to others re this void.

Brava Osso . . . this is precisely what beggars Frank's simple minded and disingenuous equation of theists and atheists.

Horseshyt.

Theists insist there is a God.

Atheists....at least the ones with any guts....insist there are no gods.

Neither knows for sure...and both want to derrogate the agnostic postion which is superior to theirs ethically, truthfully, and logically.

Atheists and theists are both blind guessers pretending the universe supports their guesses about its REALITY.

And both are stone headed when defending their postions.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Taliesin181 wrote:
Thomas: I don't really care if I agree with your defintion; my main purpose is to understand your argument, which you've never really described. If you still do not wish to explain your defintion, then at least elaborate on your evidence. Thank you.

My argument #1 is that there is no definition. That means I have no definition to explain to you or to show you evidence for -- and I don't think anybody else does. I think Setanta made my argument #2 better than I did: Like him and Lola, I reject that the burden of proof is on me here. When someone makes up a story, I feel it is his responsibility to show supporting evidence if he wants me to believe it. It isn't my responsibility to show contradicting evidence if I choose to believe it is false, given that the story was made up. Or in other words, I don't believe god exists for the same reason you don't believe Mickey Mouse exists.

If you are asserting "there are no gods" ... and you ARE asserting that there are no gods...then the burden of proof does fall on you.

But like the Christians you so closely resemble, I suspect you will never acknowledge this obvious fact and instead continue to proclaim that you know what the real nature of REALITY is.

I guess I will have to be satisfied with the laughs you provide.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Now there are two people asking Lola and Thomas for all the great mass of evidence they have that there are no gods involved in REALITY.

Where's the meat?

We have no mass of evidence that there are no gods involved in reality. Indeed, if we are right, there are no gods to have evidence for or against. What we do have, however, is evidence about stories, about how they are involved in reality and our perception of it. We can observe people's willingness to tell and re-tell them, and how they evolve and propagate through society as they are told and re-told millions of times. The evidence from such observations has taught me that when I hear a story without supporting evidence, and it's worth hearing and telling just because it's a good story, true or false -- then it is almost certainly false. But that doesn't keep a lot of people from believing them anyway. All stories I have heard about gods so far meet both conditions, so that is an adequate reason for considering the existence of god "almost certainly false, but many will buy it anyway".

(As an aside, note that you couldn't make the same case against the atheist side. We don't tell stories about blind people who saw again because a selfless atheist touched them with Russel's "Why I am not a Christian". We don't tell stories about hardened, lifetime deists who repented on their deathbeds when they finally found atheism. We don't lobby Congress to change the pledge of allegiance into "One nation without gods, indivisible ..." Even atheist religions such as Buddhism never make it a point that they are atheist. They just ignore all those urban legends asserting god's existence.)

Both you and Lola have asserted that you have evidence that there are no gods. I actually quoted Lola's comment.

Now you are trying to weasel out of it.

If you are saying that there is no evidence for any of the gods that have been asserted by theists and deists...and therefor you do not "believe" in any of them...you are asserting something that an agnostic can live with completely.

If you go the extra step...which you have...that the lack of proof of theism is somehow proof (or even pursuasive evidence) of atheism...then you are entering a belief system.

That is what you and Lola have. Belief systems. Wild guesses....pulled from goddam near nothing...and BLIND ABSOLUTE INSISTANCE that your guesses are correct.

MIRROR IMAGES OF THE THEISTS....and not just any of the theists, but the hardcore, evangelical theists who sit around fawning over their gods and talking about how much they love them.

That is something I've left off so far.

Insofar as you folks need to INSIST your guesses about REALITY are correct...you resemble the most laughable of the theists.

And that, of course, is why agnosticism in this area is infinitely superior to both theism and atheism.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Horseshyt.

Theists insist there is a God.

Atheists....at least the ones with any guts....insist there are no gods.

Translation: Atheists who are simple-minded enough to provide Frank with a rhetorical device for peddling his self-serving and self-contratulatory thesis about the superiority of his understanding will insist that there are no gods. Osso's statement stands quite well on it's own. It has nothing to do with courage, it has to do with credence.

Quote:

Neither knows for sure...and both want to derrogate the agnostic postion which is superior to theirs ethically, truthfully, and logically.

This is where we have come down to the nitty-gritty. You actually wish to contend that you suffer for the alleged superiority of your belief set? That reeks of religious martyrdom. Poor Frank, derrogated by theists and atheist alike. What horsie poop. I for one could not care less what you believe, and see not the least superiority in your position.

Quote:

Atheists and theists are both blind guessers pretending the universe supports their guesses about its REALITY.

This is only true of those whom you label as atheists, and then insist upon describing in terms which have nothing to do with them, and everything to do with a convient leverage for your argument. I'm not making guesses about anything. I don't care about the issue. I do care, however, about your snide assertion of your moral superiority, which is both laughable and disgusting.

Quote:

And both are stone headed when defending their postions.

My position is the same as Osso's--the concept of a deity is meaningless to me. There is nothing to defend, the simple statement suffices.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Horseshyt.

Theists insist there is a God.

Atheists....at least the ones with any guts....insist there are no gods.

Translation: Atheists who are simple-minded enough to provide Frank with a rhetorical device for peddling his self-serving and self-contratulatory thesis about the superiority of his understanding will insist that there are no gods. Osso's statement stands quite well on it's own. It has nothing to do with courage, it has to do with credence.

Quote:
Neither knows for sure...and both want to derrogate the agnostic postion which is superior to theirs ethically, truthfully, and logically.

This is such laughable bullshyt, I won't even bother with it.

This is where we have come down to the nitty-gritty. You actually wish to contend that you suffer for the alleged superiority of your belief set? That reeks of religious martyrdom. Poor Frank, derrogated by theists and atheist alike. What horsie poop. I for one could not care less what you believe, and see not the least superiority in your position.

Quote:
Atheists and theists are both blind guessers pretending the universe supports their guesses about its REALITY.

This is only true of those whom you label as atheists, and then insist upon describing in terms which have nothing to do with them, and everything to do with a convient leverage for your argument. I'm not making guesses about anything. I don't care about the issue. I do care, however, about your snide assertion of your moral superiority, which is both laughable and disgusting.

Quote:
And both are stone headed when defending their postions.

My position is the same as Osso's--the concept of a deity is meaningless to me. There is nothing to defend, the simple statement suffices.

This is such laughable bullshyt, I won't even bother with it.

0 Replies

Poor atheists!

Stuck with "My guesses about REALITY are better than your acknowledgement that you do not know."

How do intelligent people possibly paint themselves into that corner?????

0 Replies

I see you bothered enough to quote it full before dismissing it. It got that much of your attention.

How's the martrydom going Frank? Are they hunting you down in the streets yet?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I see you bothered enough to quote it full before dismissing it. It got that much of your attention.

How's the martrydom going Frank? Are they hunting you down in the streets yet?

Setanta...another atheist who is chopping more and more off his atheism until it has become little more than agnostic-lite.

That is exactly what so many atheists are doing these days. They see the atheistic position for the mirror image of theism that it is...and revise it.

Eventually they will present the entire of the agnostic position as theirs...but since they don't have the guts to just acknowledge that they do not know....they will never have the guts change their designation of choice to "agnostic."

Poor guys.

And then to have the nerve to pretend that you see me as martyr driven or paranoid.

Is there no end to what you folks will do to entertain me?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Setanta...another atheist who is chopping more and more off his atheism until it has become little more than agnostic-lite.

You were intent on baiting me, which is why you quoted me in the first place. I've pointed out repeatedly that asserting the existence of a deity and refusing to accept the belief without demonstration are not equivalent positions. However, this does not fit in with the simple-minded statement necessary to support your thesis of moral superiority, so you are always obliged to restate what those described as atheists by others have said in order to make it fit with that simple-minded thesis. That don't make it so, however, Bubba.

Quote:

That is exactly what so many atheists are doing these days. They see the atheistic position for the mirror image of theism that it is...and revise it.

This is hilarious Frank. You really do see those whom others describe as atheists as a sort of monolithic community bent on bringing you into disrepute? There are certainly hordes of people who describe themselves as atheist, and who make a god of science, and a religion of their profession of disbelief. I've never been a member of that club. I seriously doubt your contention here Frank, is reeks of vainglory and a suggestion that there is some sort of on-going struggle for moral superiority. Only in your mind, Frank, only in your mind.

Quote:

Eventually they will present the entire of the agnostic position as theirs...but since they don't have the guts to just acknowledge that they do not know....they will never have the guts change their designation of choice to "agnostic."

Don't have the guts--that's very amusing as well. Sounds like playground taunting, and therefore right in line with the childish assertion of your moral superiority. The operative idea here is not "don't know," it's "don't care." I don't label myself, i have no designation of choice. I leave such things to those who are obsessed, as you are, with these matters. I am atheist only in the sense that i am without god. Others label me atheist because i acknowledge both that no proof has ever been forthcoming and that it is not an important matter to me. It seems to very important to you, though, Frank. You still nurse a huge grudge against the nuns? Is that it, Frank?

Quote:

Poor guys.

And then to have the nerve to pretend that you see me as martyr driven or paranoid.

Is there no end to what you folks will do to entertain me?

More playground taunts. You wrote earlier: "Neither knows for sure...and both want to derrogate the agnostic postion which is superior to theirs ethically, truthfully, and logically." Apart from the pathetic continued attempts to paint yourself as superior to those who do not see things as you do, this reeks of martyrdom for your beliefs. "They" are derrogating you--poor Frank.

It is more than a little pathological to refer to what i have written with the third person plural. I'm not a "they," Frank, i'm me. I don't derrogate you, just your views, i find them silly and entertaining, and i find your assertion of your superiority pathetic. Is it that important to you, Frank? Those nuns must have been very mean indeed to little Frank.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Both you and Lola have asserted that you have evidence that there are no gods. I actually quoted Lola's comment.

Now you are trying to weasel out of it.

It comforts me that you didn't address the actual content of the post you were replying to. It suggests you don't have any arguments against it that you feel confident of.

0 Replies

You have to buy into the deist's positions at least a little to not dismiss god notions with finality. Which is why I place agnostics on the same page as deists.

0 Replies

Ossobuco's definition is the most reasonable I have ever seen.

Although fervor is associated with religion, Frank is the most fervid person I have ever encountered.

0 Replies

Quote:

but Frank........I don't care if there's a God or not.

Quote:

It 's only defeatist if you want to believe in God. If you're content to recognize that it doesn't really matter.....then it's only practical.

Quote:

well, I must admit that I think little about God and whether he exists or not because I really don't care if he does or not.

As I've said now at least these three times, I don't care about God or whether he exists or not

0 Replies

Okay...let's see...where was I...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know